Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]

Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (BURRY PORT HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the

present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if that Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Commercial and Private Bank Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

NHS Reforms

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the health service reforms.

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the health service reforms; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet leaders of the British Medical Association to discuss changes in the national health service.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I last met representatives of the British Medical Association on 9 July. We had useful talks on several topics related to the reform programme.

Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the BMA is concerned about the policy of opt-out for hospitals and I know that he is also aware of the consultations taking place between Withington and Wythenshawe hospitals about the rationalisation of services, especially the closure of the maternity unit. Now that Wythenshawe hospital has expressed an interest in opting out, the management of Withington hospital may now wish to retain all its services, including the maternity unit. Will the Secretary of State give the assurance today that the maternity unit at Withington can remain open until decisions have been taken about whether Wythenshawe can opt out?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no question of opting out. There has been a first expression of interest in establishing a national health service trust for one of those hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I believe that he recently met the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) to discuss the matter—we are considering that reorganisation, as we are statutorily required to do, on its merits and quite separate from the issue of approving any NHS trusts in due course.

Mr. Sims: Is not one of the most important aspects of the reforms the emphasis that is placed on health promotion, by encouraging people to eat and drink sensibly, warning them of the dangers of tobacco products and providing doctors with incentives to provide health checks, immunisation and screening? Is it not a fact that the British Medical Association and all doctors fully support those changes?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The British Medical Journal contained a generous leader by Mr. John Ashton, head of the department of public health at the university of Liverpool welcoming the steps that the Government have taken in publishing "The Health of the Nation". There has been widespread welcome for the publication of the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and for the tougher action that we are


taking on cigarette labelling. Together with the general practitioners' contract and its emphasis on preventive medicine, those steps allow the Government to claim that we are the first Government to take forward those matters with such vigour.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an increasing number of GP members of the BMA are seeking to pass on the undoubted benefits of his reforms to their patients by becoming fund-holders and will he now end the patient list limitation so that an increasing number of doctors can become fund-holders if that is their wish?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. GP fund-holders are bringing forward many innovative new ideas for the better treatment of their patients, which are already being picked up by the district health authorities for the general benefit. Many GPs are pressing me to lower the list size qualification. We are running some experiments and pilot schemes on that, which I hope will be successful.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the innovative movements, but has the BMA suggested that it needs more GP trainers and trainees? In drawing up the junior doctors' contract, has any consideration been given to increasing the number of medical students?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yesterday evening I met the regional deans, including the dean from Northern Ireland, to discuss these matters. Although in general they welcome the new structure, which protects their budget, we discussed real issues about the total number of doctors needed. That is why yesterday I announced the establishment of a new committee chaired by Professor Colin Campbell to examine and measure objectively the total need for doctors in the years ahead.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the anxiety expressed by Opposition Members about national health service reforms is caused by their astonishment that the Government have listened so carefully and effectively to what GPs and many others have been saying for many years? For example, in Kent, where the number of practice nurses has trebled in the past three years, general practitioners are finding increasingly that the NHS reforms provide them with a tremendous opportunity to improve and innovate.

Mr. Waldegrave: There is absolutely no question but that the improvements which have been made in general practice and community medicine in the past 10 years have in many cases transformed the services available to patients. Patients know that and welcome it warmly, as they have done in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State is so anxious to listen to the views of GPs, which of the BMA's conference resolutions will he be most anxious to discuss when he next meets that body? Will it be the one that records the BMA's view that the reforms of the health service mean that the NHS is not safe in his hands? Or will it be the one that expressed concern at the rapid deterioration of the NHS? Or would the Secretary of State rather meet the 600 consultants who paid for a page in The Observer warning that as a result of the changes there are now serious restrictions on patients' choice? If the Secretary of State prefers the views of patients, will he meet the community health councils, whose conference a week

ago resolved that contracting could not remedy underfunding? Is not the reality that the Government are not interested in anyone's opinion but their own and will not listen to anyone but themselves?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall address that part of the BMA motion that said that it sought
constructive dialogue with the Government rather than confrontation.
Of course, that is what we shall seek.
I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) engage in such debate. He recently visited Walton. It was a rather unsuccessful visit during which he involved himself in the affairs of the Fazakerley hospital with the result that one of the consultants said:
These electioneering politicians make me sick. They won't talk about the expansion at Fazakerley … The Fazakerley option was what the clinicians wanted. It is clearly the best way to deliver health care on one site.
That was followed up by the hospital doctor who said:
It is ironic that Labour, which criticises the Government for not listening to the views of doctors on its health reforms, is now itself choosing to ignore medical opinion.
A little quiet from the hon. Gentleman would be in order.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new constructive dialogue which has been established between his Department and the BMA. Will the new committee that has been set up merely discuss the health service and the reforms, or could it be extremely constructive and seek to monitor and evaluate the effects of the reforms in the national health service? If the latter is the case, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could confirm it to the House this afternoon.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the joint work that we intend to do on GP fundholding, in particular with the general medical services committee. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be a continuing assessment and that we shall listen to recommendations which come out of that work.

Cervical Smears

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have now met the targets set for the time scale of results of cervical smears to be relayed to general practitioners and patients.

The Minster for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Health authority laboratories must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests within one month to the doctor who took them. Latest figures show that 173 district health authorities—that is 93 per cent.—were meeting the target.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will appreciate that that is an improvement on the previous statistics. Does she recall that on 21 February she said that one third of the laboratories were not meeting that target and that there was a waiting list of about 7·5 weeks for the processing of tests? What is the waiting time in areas where the target is not being met?

Mrs. Bottomley: Thirteen districts are not meeting the target, the longest wait, at the latest date, being 13 weeks. The vast majority have waits of much less than that. The particular case is being closely investigated, but there has been a substantial improvement. Last July, about two thirds of districts were meeting the target. Now, 93 per


cent. of them are. Perhaps even more important, nine out of 10 GPs are obtaining their target payments for making sure that they take cervical smears in the first place. This is real health promotion and disease prevention.

Mr. Marlow: Health Ministers are rightly introducing initiatives to deal with the health care of women, but half the population, by and large, is made up of men. What health care initiatives does my hon. Friend intend to put forward to look after us?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend and I shall enter into urgent discussions with him to see what further steps we can take to improve the health care of men. Women not only make up the majority of the population; they make up the overwhelming majority of those who work in the NHS, and for the most part, they are the decision makers and communicators in their families about health. I agree, however, that we must give further concern to the health care of men, whose life expectancy is not, I regret, as great as that of women.

NHS Capital Expenditure

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of capital expenditure in the national health service in 1978–79; and what is the figure for 1991–92.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): NHS capital expenditure is planned to be £1·9 billion in 1991–92 compared with £0·4 billion in 1978–79, an increase in real terms of 68 per cent.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for those excellent figures. He will have laid emphasis on the fact that in 1979 the last Labour Government —to balance their financial books, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund—cut and cut again capital expenditure in the NHS. Those cuts impeded the development of the service in the Birmingham area, which under the present Government is launching the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" campaign, along with hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that only under a Conservative Government is that possible?

Mr. Dorrell: The track record squares absolutely with my hon. Friend's version. Between 1974 and 1979 the Labour party cut the NHS capital programme by 16 per cent. in real terms, compared with the increase of 68 per cent. that I have just announced. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that in Birmingham we currently have in progress a programme costing £15·9 million at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, £23·4 million at the East Birmingham hospital, £5·6 million at the Good Hope hospital, and £2·5 million at the Dudley Road hospital. That represents a total of schemes in progress of £47·4 million, without taking account of the £310 million which we are committed to spend on the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" programme.

Mr. Ashley: Before the Minister and other members of the Government try to score too many party political points in relation to figures such as those, may I ask him to find time to read the letter in The Independent today, which is an account by a patient in a leading London

hospital casualty department which is filthy, hot and overcrowded? Is the Minister aware that that is the reality facing many patients in Britain today?

Mr. Dorrell: The question that that patient or anyone else wishing to compare the records of the parties on capital expenditure must ask is which of the rival management teams available offers the best prospect of solving the problem—a team which, when it last had the opportunity, cut capital expenditure by 16 per cent., or a team which, since 1979, has seen capital expenditure increase by 68 per cent.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals applied for and were granted trust status in the first wave; and how many have expressed interest in possible inclusion in the second and third waves.

Mr. Waldegrave: A total of 66 hospitals and other units applied for trust status in the first wave, of which 57 were established as trusts on 1 April this year; 130 expressions of interest were received for inclusion in the second wave, and 107 applications have been submitted. We also expect five or six first-wave candidates which were not established to resubmit their applications. We have not yet asked for formal expressions of interest in the third wave.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, of the four district general hospitals that serve Twickenham, Kingston already has trust status, Ashford has applied for it in the second wave, and West Middlesex and Queen Mary's Roehampton, hospitals intend to apply for it in the third stage? Does he agree that that great enthusiasm for trust status is despite the efforts of Labour politicians to intimidate those national health service staff who might wish to be involved?

Mr. Waldegrave: The fact that so many hospitals are applying for trust status shows that the staff involved have not been intimidated. We had to make the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) back down from his threats before the House on one occasion. I am delighted to say that, as my hon. Friend already knows, Kingston hospital NHS trust has already reduced the number of long waiters from 2,000 to 400 and the new building will be open this year, and the other applications are coming forward. In the case of Ashford, trust status was strongly supported by more than 80 per cent. of the consultants.

Mr. Battle: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better to sort out what is happening with the first wave before considering another wave? Where trust status has been granted, as in the case of Leeds general infirmary, the impact has been the loss of 10 beds in Cookridge cancer hospital and eight night staff being told on 14 June, without any prior notification, that their jobs were to go. Is not that what is happening?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. The trust hospitals are matching good management to problems which have often existed for many years, and we are seeing quicker and better solutions to those problems for the benefit of patients. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Mr. Wiggin: Weston-super-Mare general hospital was fortunate enough to achieve trust status in the first round,


the trust is working extremely well and I can reasonably claim that the people of that excellent town are receiving better health care than ever before, but will my right hon. Friend discourage the regional health authority from seeking to remove some of the peripheral hospitals such as Burnham-on-Sea and Axbridge simply in the interests of tidy bureaucracy?

Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend would expect, being a relatively near neighbour I am well aware of the issue and I shall look at it closely. I am also aware that the trust is doing extremely well and bringing new benefits to patients every week.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the hospitals included in the figures that he has announced for the second wave is King's College hospital in Camberwell. Since the changes in April, that hospital has been on red alert and closed to routine cases. Before the Secretary of State considers that hospital for a trust, will he reconsider the three invitations to visit the hospital that he has refused? Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to visit that hospital in financial crisis rather than spend time tomorrow only half a mile away from it at the Dulwich picture gallery, where he is opening an exhibition of portraits of old Etonians?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a very heavyweight contribution. The hon. Gentleman is going to a meeting at King's College hospital tomorrow, and the leaflets advertising his presence contain untruths. I hope that he will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from those leaflets, which say:
King's College hospital to opt out of the national health service.
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a lie. He has backed down on the point before and I hope that he will do so again now.
The hon. Gentleman recently made another unsuccessful visit, to Oldham hospital, to campaign against the consultants who wished the hospital to be a trust. He said then that a Labour Government would pour money into the NHS—[Interruption.] Oh yes, he did—I have the quote with me. A local newspaper reported the hon. Gentleman as saying:
A Labour Government would pour money into the NHS.
On a recent visit to the British Medical Association, the hon. Gentleman said that additional expenditure of £6 billion was not out of the ball park, but when he was asked on "Panorama" where the money would come from, he said:
These are questions … that you will have to address to John Smith, who is my colleague"—
there may be some doubt about that—
who handles the Exchequer questions.
May we have answers from the Member who is responsible for those matters?

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing hospital waiting lists in Shropshire.

Mr. Dorrell: In the 12 months to March 1991, the number of patients waiting for in-patient and day case

treatment in Shropshire fell by 17 per cent. More importantly, the number waiting for more than one year fell by 58 per cent.

Mr. Gill: I am most grateful for those encouraging figures. Does not my hon. Friend agree that they are by no means unique in the country today and that, under the Conservative Government, and as a result of the management changes introduced last year, waiting lists have been reduced throughout the country? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the Labour party that there is scarcely a patient today who cannot see a doctor, scarcely a patient who, having seen a doctor, is denied the drugs and medicine required, and scarcely a patient who, having been admitted to hospital, has not been entirely delighted with the care and attention received in hospital?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, particularly in relation to waiting lists. One figure has been consistently collected before and through the period of the last Labour Government and through this Government's term of office—the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment in the health service. That figure rose by 48 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, and has fallen by 9 per cent. since 1979.

Clinical Guidelines

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss clinical guidelines; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers and officials have regular contact with representatives of the British Medical Association and discuss a broad range of issues of mutual interest.

Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept that, if the resources of the national health service are to be used to the maximum advantage of patients, it is crucial that clinical guidelines are laid down, both for general practitioners and for consultant surgeons, so that patients can have full confidence that the operations undertaken on them do not do them more harm than good, as is plainly the case in a large number of current procedures, including hysterectomies and operations for glue ear, to give just two examples?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into deep waters. I would not want the House to be the judge of which medical procedures are correct. We have effective royal colleges which monitor the standards and the Government have greatly strengthened the process of medical and clinical audit, which should further improve standards. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular issue with me in relation to a procedure that he fears is being wrongly applied, I shall be happy to put him in touch with the chief medical officer to discuss the issue further.

Mr. Michael Morris: The key clinical guideline that all patients want when they see the consultant is to be told the date on which they will be operated on. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the NHS executive so that that is the norm in all 14 regions of this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is in some of those spheres of convenience to patients—quite apart from medical standards, which I do not question—that the NHS can do a great deal more. The Government are doing a great deal more both to bring down the waiting times which were left at a high level by the last Labour Government, and to make the service more convenient for patients.

Mr. Wigley: What clinical guidelines are given to consultants who identify a patient with an urgent need for an operation, cannot cope with the patient within the NHS for months, yet find time to do the operation privately at their own profit? Is that not a matter which should be regulated by severe clinical guidelines?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that urgent cases are admitted—50 per cent. of all cases are admitted at once off the waiting lists in the NHS, and of the remaining cases, the great majority are seen within about five weeks. Recently, the work that we did with the joint consultants committee laid down clear guidelines for the treatment of urgent cases, with the total support of all the professionals involved, including the British Medical Association.

NHS Ambulance Trusts

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives have been taken by the national health service ambulance trusts; and how this will affect patient care.

Mr. Dorrell: All three ambulance service trusts have taken positive steps to ensure quicker response times, staff are fully trained and each ambulance is manned with a paramedic. These improvements enhance the quality of care to patients.

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the new, well-run Norfolk and Waveney national health service ambulance trust has recently speeded up its paramedic training and has initiated a 24-hour message handling service for general practitioners? Does not this show that trust status leads to good management and value for money, to the benefit of NHS patients throughout the area?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The fame of the NHS as an organisation that runs good ambulance services has spread beyond these shores. Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that the Barcelona Olympics will benefit from NHS expertise in the operation of an ambulance service. Labour Members will benefit from hearing a quote from the director of NHS Overseas Enterprise Ltd., Mrs. Wark, who said:
The NHS gets a lot of criticism within the UK, but it still has the highest reputation of any health service in the world.
Most NHS patients would agree with that.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the only initiative taken by the Northumbria ambulance trust, apart from entering the car repair business, has been an increase in the salaries of the officers who first decided to apply for trust status? Does the Minister believe that these increases are in the interests of patients and if he does, will he say why the trust refuses to publish the figures?

Mr. Dorrell: When the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he should be better informed. Since the establishment of the NHS trust in Northumbria, four new accident and emergency vehicles have been introduced into the service, response times for the ambulance service have improved, standby services in Northumbria have been increased so that there is 24-hour manning on the A1 route to Scotland, there is now one paramedic per vehicle, and the Northumbria ambulance service has been approved by the British Standards Institution under the BS 5750 scheme.

Mr. Hayes: Is not it monstrous for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to go grubbing round our hospitals and ambulance stations with their trade union friends, cynically manipulating the fears of the elderly and the frail for a few cheap votes? Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to come clean and admit that trusts are not opting out of the health service and that it is against the law for them to make a profit?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of ambulances.

Mr. Dorrell: I echo my hon. Friend's invitation to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Perhaps I might also make a more modest suggestion, which is that he listens to the Devon branch of NUPE, which is anxious to ensure that the Devon ambulance service has the opportunity to become an NHS trust in the second wave.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the London ambulance service is applying for trust status, but at the same time has vehicles with inferior specifications, a reduction in the number of its officers by 50, a capping of the necessary overtime for emergency services and a move to divide patient transport services into 32 different organisations? Is he aware that the management is appointed entirely and directly by the Secretary of State, who, despite those deficiencies, has refused to see a deputation of London Members of Parliament? Is not this arrogant and undemocratic behaviour, which demands the condemnation of the House?

Mr. Dorrell: No. The hon. Gentleman has got it diametrically wrong. Mr. Wilby has offered on a number of occasions to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Mr. Wilby is the man who has been charged with the management of the London ambulance service and he is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Some of my hon. Friends have met Mr. Wilby. Labour Members have consistently refused to do so. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was seriously interested in representing the intrests of his constituents, rather than those of NALGO, he would agree to meet Mr. Wilby to learn something about the affairs of the London ambulance service from its management.

Junior Hospital Doctors

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet the British Medical Association to discuss working arrangements for junior hospital doctors.

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss junior doctors' hours.

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has further to improve the working arrangements of junior hospital doctors.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We launched a new deal for junior doctors on 12 June aimed at reducing their hours of work and improving their living and working conditions. This has the full backing of the ministerial group on junior doctors' hours which includes British Medical Association representatives. This group, and its supporting technical group, will continue to meet to monitor progress in implementing the new arrangements. I spoke at the BMA's hospital junior staff committee conference on 15 June.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a welcome new agreement, but that its success depends on the co-operation of the consultants, nurses and ancillary workers and that there will have to be some changes of attitude towards junior hospital doctors, particularly among some senior consultants?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, Sir. However, the agreement is a great breakthrough. For 15 months the consultants, junior doctors and the NHS management worked together to hammer out the agreement setting explicit limits on the amount of time that junior doctors should work. It is not good enough that they should be working night and day. It is not good for the junior doctors; it is not good for the patients. The consultants and the royal colleges have had to think carefully about the implementation of the agreement and I am confident that, through the ministerial group, we shall continue to see vital progress.

Mr. Eastham: On junior doctors working long hours and the consequences for patients, has not it taken between five and six years to obtain the agreement and is not it true that it is not expected to be fully implemented until the end of 1996 and that even then junior doctors' hours will be reduced to only a 60-hour week? Will the Minister give us a guarantee that there will be no change of mind and that funding will be available?

Mrs. Bottomley: Before taking lectures from the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that when the Labour party was in government junior doctors worked an average of 91 hours a week. That is now down to about 81 hours. There is, of course, a difference between contracted hours of duty on call and actual working hours. We make it clear that the maximum amount of time on shift working should be 60 hours immediately and 56 hours by the end of 1994.
If the hon. Gentleman wants more details, he should go to the regional conference in Manchester on 25 July, one of nine regional conferences, where the guidance will be spelt out and those who have only a partial understanding of the agreement will have the opportunity to understand the full significance of the breakthrough.

Mr. Moss: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her expert handling of the successful negotiations on junior hospital doctors' conditions of service. This is a major step forward—a view endorsed by the BMA in its recent letter to me. However, bearing in mind the fact that some 50 per cent. of medical students are women, what special steps, if any, does she propose to take to help women junior hospital doctors in particular?

Mrs. Bottomley: I pay tribute to all the junior doctors' leaders who worked so hard to secure the agreement. It is another example of practical working together, quite distinct from the rhetoric of adversity and conflict peddled by the Opposition, and building up solid achievements and making progress. My hon. Friend is right that half medical students are women and we are concerned about losing so many of them. There are growing numbers of women general practitioners and doctors. As a practical step forward we have quadrupled the number of part-time registrar posts and developed further initiatives to secure their future so that they can serve the health service on the basis of their training.

Mr. Nellist: The Minister will be aware of the case on which I have corresponded with her and the Secretary of State and which I raised with the Prime Minister about three weeks ago of a young junior hospital doctor who worked almost 120 hours during his first week at a hospital and who, at the end of those seven days, collapsed and died. Given that the agreement of which the Minister has spoken this afternoon means that in five years' time, in 1997, it will still be possible for junior hospital doctors to work 72 hours a week, is not that still too little of an agreement to stop the stress and strain on the young doctors replicating that experience, thus risking another death in the next five years?

Mrs. Bottomley: I agree that being a junior doctor is much more stressful than it used to be. Modern medicine is much more complex and detailed. Ensuring that juniors are better supported, a better pastoral system, and improved working conditions are all part and parcel of the agreement. It is important to ensure also that junior doctors are properly supervised and that their working arrangements are adequately considered. The 72-hour maximum applies to doctors on duty, but those working consistently on a shift system would work a maximum of 56 hours. To ensure that progress is achieved, we not only established regional working parties but provided 200 extra consultants this year and an additional 50 staff grades. We have backed the agreement with new resources.

Operations (Waiting Lists)

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for an operation (a) for more than one year and (b) for more than two years on 30 April; and what were the comparable figures a year before.

Mr. Waldegrave: Information on numbers waiting for operations is not available for April 1991, but provisional figures for all specialties show a fall of 20 per cent. in the number waiting more than one year since March 1990. The number waiting more than two years reduced by 39 per cent.

Mr. Smith: Is not that an outstandingly successful achievement in the course of one year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has less to do with the quantity of health service resources and more to do with the quality of management? How does that successful record compare with the achievement of the last Labour Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that the health service is getting better at avoiding long waiting lists and that it is treating more people more quickly. The last


Labour Government, like all previous Labour Governments, left waiting lists higher than they found them.

Mr. Galbraith: Is not the Minister aware that the number of patients currently awaiting treatment is at 906,406, higher than in 1979, when the figure was 752,400? Is he aware that the percentage waiting more than one year remains almost unchanged at 25 per cent.? Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Terence English, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who commented today on waiting lists:
The overall provision of resources and manpower are currently insufficient … to provide patients with the benefits of modern surgery"?
Is not the real problem that identified by Sir Terence English—underfunding?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am a little disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, who should know better. He knows that he arrived at his first figure by not comparing like with like. In-patient figures have fallen. The hon. Gentleman was badly briefed on his second point. We have 40,000 fewer long-wait patients than did Labour, which is a drop of about 25 per cent.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to refer to our co-operative work with the Royal College of Surgeons, announced today, in respect of waiting list management. We welcome the college's contribution, which fits very closely with the guidelines that we issued.

Women's Health

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by the Government to improve the health of women; and how it will build on this work for attaining future targets.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government place a high priority on improving the health of women. We are one of the first countries in the world to introduce computerised call and recall breast cervical cancer screening programmes. We recently published a booklet to publicise the help and services available to women.

Mrs. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey of 5,000 women showing that cancer remains their single most worrying health concern? Does not that prove, if proof were needed, that the Government were right to guarantee a cervical smear to every woman between the ages of 20 and 64 and breast screening to every woman aged between 50 and 64? Were not the Government also right to hold out on targeting, despite all the opposition, to ensure that general practitioners encouraged women to come forward for cervical screening? I am pleased to report that all 70 GP practices in Wolverhampton have achieved one of the two targets set for them.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely powerfully. Labour advocates a two-tier health service in which inner city areas would have a lower target. We held out for all general practitioners to achieve higher targets, of the same standard, across the country. To help inner city areas, we introduced deprivation payments. That is the way to extend health care. My hon. Friend is right that health promotion and disease prevention for women have been a real breakthrough.

HIV Testing

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions the Government have drawn from the voluntary named HIV testing studies among pregnant women initiated by the Medical Research Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The results of the voluntary named testing studies in ante-natal clinics initiated by the Medical Research Council are being analysed. They will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Strang: What is the Government's response to the vote at the annual general meeting of the British Medical Association in favour of routine provision of voluntary named testing for all women who attend ante-natal clinics? Does the Minister accept that if the Government are to implement such a desirable policy, they must first tackle the insurance companies, which ask people whether they have been tested and downgrade them for insurance purposes, regardless of whether the results were positive or negative?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. The recent results of anonymised testing are worrying: in many inner-city areas, there is a risk of about one in 200 pregnant women being HIV positive, while in rural areas the proportion is about one in 16,000.
As a result, we have set up the AIDS action group, which will focus work on areas where the prevalence is high. We want to build on that and we shall give careful consideration to the BMA resolution, which states that it should be easier for women to present themselves voluntarily for testing.
I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the insurance aspect. We have made it clear that we feel that someone whose test has produced a negative result should be treated in the same way as someone who has not taken a test. Research is under way and we shall be making an announcement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Trotter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the economic summit.

Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the electricians' trade union on Tyneside play a great part in the economic success of our region? That union is not tied to out-of-date practices. Did my right hon. Friend know that Eric Hammond had recently warned his members of the dire consequences of socialist policy and does he agree that those consequences should be made known to all trade union members?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that all trade union members are becoming increasingly aware of them. Eric Hammond was talking about the minimum wage policy, which he said would
cause industrial unrest, discourage training, harm the economy, put more people on the dole and create a cycle whereby inflation continues to rise.


No wonder Opposition Ministers do not want to hear what a trade union leader has said. That is only one in a long line of devastating indictments of Labour's minimum wage policy. It is beginning to look like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow: bad news and more bad news every day.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the Bank of England and the Treasury have known since the publication of the March 1990 Price Waterhouse report that serious irregularities were operating in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bank took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] This is a very important point. It took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence to support the use of its statutory powers. It cannot act on mere suspicion.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the 1990 Price Waterhouse report said that BCCI was then virtually bankrupt and that hundreds of millions of dollars were being given in unsecured loans? Does he not think that if businesses, individuals and council treasurers had been aware of those conditions, they would then have formed an appropriate opinion on whether to use BCCI? A great deal of hardship and misery might thus have been avoided.

Mr. MacGregor: The point is that the Bank must act according to the Banking Act 1987. Actions under that Act are subject to appeal and the Bank must therefore have evidence that would stand up in court before it does anything. It cannot act on rumours; it must have good evidence before acting. In this case, it acted as soon as it had such evidence.

Mr. Kinnock: We are not talking about the Bank or the Government acting on the basis of rumours. We are talking about both bodies acting on the basis of a serious report from the auditors. The bank has now closed, 200,000 people have lost all or part of their savings and councils of all political descriptions have lost scores of millions of pounds. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government accepted their share of the blame for these conditions instead of trying to shift the blame to the shoulders of people who simply could not have known what was going on in the same way as the Government could?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of shifting the blame. On the question of the individuals concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows that under the deposit protection scheme compensation is paid to depositors up to certain levels of deposit. That gives considerable protection to small depositors. It is essential for the Bank to act on evidence that would stand up in court and it did so as soon as it had that evidence.

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to reconsider the laws governing prison visits and the number of visitors allowed at any one time so that

all 28 Labour Members who agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) about nonpayment of the community charge may visit him together in gaol?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question, but it has a serious point. Since he raised the matter of the 28 Labour Members, it is worth mentioning that three years ago the Leader of the Opposition said that he would wipe out the Militants once and for all. He failed then, which is why we have called upon him to take action ever since. My hon. Friend has made the good point that the influence of Militant in the Labour party is still strong.

Mr. Rees: Will the Leader of the House bring to the Prime Minister's notice the serious allegations made in The Guardian today about a "World in Action" programme which reported the comments of a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the fact that serious matters are not brought to the attention of Cabinet Ministers or Parliament? They are serious allegations which should be investigated. Will he ask the Prime Minister, when he has finished today, to institute an inquiry, because such allegations cast doubt on matters that should not be in question?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen that "World in Action" programme, but I shall arrange for it to be looked at and will draw the right hon. Gentleman's point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Q.3 Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to get a message to the Prime Minister at the economic summit to ask him to express regret at the assertion revealed today in The Sun that the election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency was based on a disgraceful campaign of slurs and attacks? Those assertions are apparently made in a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party.

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the report and I hope that it is not true. If it is true, it is a disgraceful slur and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would wish to have it withdrawn.

Ms. Walley: With so many international leaders meeting in London this week, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House why his Government have no policy on British shipping? Now that the House has been denied the opportunity to debate and vote on this matter, will he tell us why he is not giving the support to British shipping that other countries enjoy?

Mr. MacGregor: There already is support for British shipping, but it was made clear in one of the debates last night that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering proposals put forward during that debate.

Mr. Knowles: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Knowles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he sees the Prime Minister—

Mr. Tony Banks: Will he recognise him?

Mr. Knowles: During the Group of Seven conference and discussions with President Gorbachev, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make it clear that the Baltic states have not been forgotten, that none of the G7 countries has ever accepted the Soviet conquest of those three states and that that must be a starting point for any discussions about aid and investment?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Leader of the House aware that at this morning's annual general meeting of British Airways, Lord King announced that, because of the appalling incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in his dealings with American airlines, British Airways is considering selling off all but its core operations, including an aero overhaul plant in my constituency which employs 1,000 men and women? What is he going to do to prevent such a calamity for south Wales?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly reject the allegation about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The whole House knows of the way in which he has conducted these matters.

Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to re-read the excellent speech made a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the future of our education system and will he pay special attention to the passage which deals with the future of city technology colleges? Can we expect early action by the Government to ensure a great increase in the number of CTCs?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thought that it was an admirable speech which showed the tremendous progress that has been made under our education policies. My hon. Friend makes it clear that one programme—only one among many—is that for city technology colleges. There are now 13 in operation or about to be in operation and two more in the pipeline. They are undoubtedly making a big impact in inner-city areas by extending technology and involving industry and commerce. My right hon. Friend mentioned two other ways in which the programme can be carried forward—allowing local education authorities to invest in CTCs and allowing grant-maintained CTCs. It is worth pursuing both ideas and I am sure that we shall do so as soon as legislative time permits.

Mr. Wallace: To revert to the BCCI affair, is the Leader of the House satisfied that in all respects the Bank of England and the relevant Government Departments took the proper action at the proper time?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I believe that the Bank of England acted on the evidence at the proper time.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the report that has just been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau? Does he agree that it is encouraging to hear overseas business men say that we have better-qualified and better-trained engineers than the Japanese and that we now have almost no strikes in this country? Does not the report show that under this Government the British disease of the 1960s and 1970s has now been cured—[Interruption] Would not that be reversed under a Labour Government?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not at all surprised that some members of the Opposition did not want my hon. Friend to finish his question, because they do not like good news. I believe that the Invest in Britain Bureau survey is the authentic verdict on the country's economic progress and policies. It is worth telling the House that the majority of those involved in the survey found that British factories were more productive than those in the rest of the world. They found our industrial relations excellent and improving. They found that our workers had the skill and expertise that they wanted and they intend to make further investments in this country.
Opposition Members did not like the comment that my hon. Friend made about the so-called "British disease" of the 1960s and 1970s. It is worth referring to the statement made recently by Gavyn Davies in reference to current trends on pay and prices. He said—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that Opposition Members do not like it. He said—it is directly relevant to my hon. Friend's point—
This means that Britain's perennial problem of excess labour cost is being solved.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Leader of the House confirm that in addition to describing the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in giving away large chunks of British Airways' business to American Airlines and United Airlines, Lord King also said that he was reviewing the practice by British Airways of making large donations to the Tory party? He said that he was considering opening negotiations with the Labour party, because, unlike the Government, we have a transport policy. As the leader of a large transport undertaking, Lord King wanted there to be a Government with whom he could work in helping British transport undertakings to create more jobs and more business for this country.

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that any industrialist considering opening negotiations with the Labour party will ask it about its policy of an extra £35 billion on public expenditure and about the consequences of that for higher taxation, higher borrowing and higher interest. I hope that such an industrialist will ask it about its policy for the minimum wage and about its industrial relations policies which will take us back to a situation such as we had, alas, in the late 1970s and which we hope never to see again.

Points of Order

Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A press conference is taking place at the moment to amplify an answer to Question 98 on today's Order Paper. It concerns the relocation or redistribution of responsibilities within naval bases in this country. It is of particular interest to Scottish Members and to Members in the south-west. The matter is sufficiently important to require the presence at the press conference of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have already declined to come to the House to advise hon. Members of what is being said at the press conference. Do you consider that they should be required to come to the Dispatch Box to explain their actions?

Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that I deprecate press conferences given in amplification of answers to questions. If I had had that knowledge before midday, I might have taken a different view when making my decision on this matter.

Mr. O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following up your helpful remarks, would you instruct the Leader of the House, who has answered questions today, to require his colleagues to come to the House? This is not a matter of party advantage. We do not know what the outcome of the question will be. The House is entitled to know and to have the same access to Ministers which members of the press have.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order already. The question was to me. I have no authority today to do what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asks, but I will look sympathetically at the matter tomorrow.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you examine today's Order Paper, you will see that the question is in my name. That will not surprise anyone because I have been campaigning in Scotland about the importance of the Scottish input in the defence infrastructure of the United Kingdom. It is quite proper that I, among others, should take an interest in having the question answered.

Mr. Speaker: That was not the thrust of the point of order. It is perfectly in order to answer a written question. The purpose of the hon. Member for Clackmannan was to seek my view about a press conference being given to amplify the answer. I have made my views clear.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, which did not finish until 1 pm, the Secretary of State for Scotland was pressed precisely on this issue and refused to give a reply? Does that not show contempt for the Scottish Grand Committee as well as for the House?

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his last comment; I am afraid that I did not hear it.

Mr. Clarke: Several times this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State for Scotland was

asked a precise question. He refused to reply. He refused even to say whether a press conference would take place, although the Committee sitting finished as recently as 1 o'clock today. Does that not display contempt both for the Scottish Grand Committee and for the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Secretary of State had heard about the press conference; I certainly have not.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that in the last year or so hon. Members on both sides of the House have attempted to get an answer about naval bases. I understand from members of the press, who seem to have been told at about 12 o'clock today, that all the naval bases are mentioned. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, have any power to ensure that an early statement is made to the House so that we can question Ministers. I understand that the news is good; Ministers may have felt that they had to come to the House only if the news was bad. We could offer them our congratulations—or, at least, we could find out where we are.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this matter first. The whole House knows my view that, if press conferences are to be held, a statement should first be made in the House. I feel strongly about that, and I have already made my views plain. I cannot do anything about the matter today, but I may seek to do so tomorrow.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I raised this very point with the Leader of the House during business questions on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that matters would be delayed—in effect, until the return of the House in October. I have no complaint about the use of written questions, but I have complained—and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take my complaint on board—that when hon. Members, assiduous in their duties, timeously ask during business questions what is likely to happen, it shows gross disrespect to the House if the Leader of the House does not exercise his responsibilities to the House as a whole and ensure that Ministers give us the information rather than giving it to the press.
I am not being wise after the event. I raised the question on Thursday. We need a strict undertaking from you, Mr. Speaker, that you will use your good offices on behalf of the House to speak to the Leader of the House, who has responsibilities to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say any more than I have said. I have already made it plain that tomorrow I shall look sympathetically upon any requests made to me.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong the points of order, but it is important to draw to your attention the fact that there were exchanges with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject during the Scottish Grand Committee this morning—they were most unrewarding in terms of information given. I should also draw to your attention the fact that I have just received a copy of a letter delivered today to the convener of Fife region from Vice Admiral Sir Hugo White, the flag officer, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which says:


I am therefore writing to let you know that the Secretary of State for Defence will today announce a proposal to reduce progressively the base's capability"—
that is, Rosyth base—
and that it will eventually support only minor war vessels. The base infrastructure will therefore be subject to a planned rundown related to the dates to be agreed for the changes to Type 42 Destroyer base ports. This will sadly but inevitably lead to significant job losses and the prospect of accompanying redundancies.
That information is being bandied about and supplied to people outside the House, which makes it doubly important that the House should be informed. We must be given the chance to hear the information today and to cross-question Ministers about what it means and why so many competing stories are being put about concerning the future of the base.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say more than I have already said about it. If the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman thinks that the matter is so urgent that we must have a statement today, I remind him that that can be achieved only through the usual channels. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the equivalent of press conferences should be given to the House by the Secretary of State, and not to outside bodies before us. If the Minister does not make a statement tomorrow, I shall look sympathetically on a private notice question.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are vital matters of national security and public defence. I understand that there is a possibility that, when President Gorbachev comes here, he will be accompanied by members of the KGB. In view of the recent evidence of KGB-type activities in the people's republic of Liverpool, where political dissidents have been subjected to clandestine photography and worse, if any statement is to be made, would it be possible to establish that these witch hunts are purely part of the digestive system of the Labour party and have nothing to do with the old guard in the entourage of President Gorbachev?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what you have heard and the way in which you have responded to it, will you entertain the moving of a motion under Standing Order 20 so that the matter can now be properly debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Not today.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all understand that you have repeatedly said that you deplore such situations and, equally, that you have no power to force Ministers to come before the House and make a statement, but may I ask you, Sir, to bear in mind the fact that you have powers that could influence Ministers' thinking very strongly? Ministers might well feel that a PNQ alone is an easier option than a full statement. But if you said now that you would consider sympathetically not just an application for a PNQ but an application under Standing Order 20 for an emergency debate the following day, it might have an effect on the Minister's disposition to come here tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We hear a great deal about parliamentary sovereignty and about how you are here to protect hon. Members. We fully accept that you are not responsible for Government business. However, we had the Leader of the House here a few moments ago, and he has now left. Would it not be appropriate to have some discussion behind the Chair that resulted in a statement being made on this matter at 7 o'clock tonight?

Mr. Speaker: I have already made my views about that clear. The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating what I have just said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have a heavy day ahead of us on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong the points of order, but this is a matter of importance. Opposition Members are naturally reluctant to let the matter drift away without any firm understanding of what will happen. It seems to me that there is a firm view—which I think will be shared by Conservative Members with defence interests—that there should be a statement today, particularly in view of the letter that I read to the House from the flag officer. Would it not be possible to get some indication now—I know that the Leader of the House is not here—from a responsible Minister that there will be a statement later today, perhaps most conveniently at 7 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: That would certainly be a possibility, but, as I have already said, it is a matter for the usual channels and not for me. I cannot force the issue.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told the House that he had for a long time expressed a close interest in the developing plans for the rationalisation of the Royal Navy support infrastructure. No one would dispute that, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman happened to table last night the question that has been used as the reason for the press conference.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the Order Paper. Questions 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 were all tabled before 10.30 pm yesterday. All of them were tabled by Conservative Back Benchers and all of them call for statements from Ministers. I understand, Sir, that this is perhaps more appropriately a matter for the Procedure Committee, but it would greatly assist those of us on the Procedure Committee, and all those interested in good order, if you expressed your opinion about clearly planted questions being tabled the previous night, thus making it very difficult for Opposition Members to put in their four penn'orth.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Procedure Committee and he can do that himself.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), may I say that I had to be in Scotland this morning. At the same time that the Scottish Grand Committee meeting was held in this House, the news was broadcast at 12 o'clock in Scotland that the Government had confirmed, not the factual situation about Rosyth, but what we now know is a


version of events. We are dealing not simply with contempt of the Scottish Grand Committee or contempt of the House, but with news management in order to present what by any standards is a partisan account of events to mislead the House and the public. There must be a statement at 7 o'clock to clarify matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that in order to run this show there has to be a careful balance between yourself, the usual channels and the House as a whole. It has been obvious for some time that the Government are trying to upset that balance by the use of planted questions, not only at Prime Minister's Question Time, which has been commented upon in most of the newspapers lately, but also in questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a fortnight ago, who planted a question with a Conservative Member from Lancashire about the state of dioxin in milk in my constituency and nowhere else in Britain. We have seen a further usurpation of that balance today. There are occasions when Mr. Speaker must restore the balance
Far from just deprecating what is happening, it would make a great deal of sense today if the Speaker of the House of Commons made it clear to that bunch on the Treasury Bench that they should get someone to the Dispatch Box later today. You could say that, and it would help to restore the balance.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said it.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is obvious from questions put to you that I am under attack, I must stress that my interest in the matter arose primarily because we knew that we would be debating in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning the Scottish economy and employment prospects in Fife, which are tied up with the naval base and its future. Therefore, I deemed it prudent to approach my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to see whether I could have an early response to my many requests about the decision on the future of the Royal Navy support, and they gladly agreed that that should be done today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time was when Ministers always made statements to the House before they made them outside. I hope that we can get back to that practice. This Chamber is the forum of the nation. This is where statements should always first be made, not to those outside.

Mr. James Wallace: You have made your views perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, and you have dropped the broadest of hints. In order that there may be some time for mature reflection on what you have said, I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 235.

Division No. 212]
[3.47 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)





Carr, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Cartwright, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Douglas, Dick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronald
Trimble, David


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Sir Russell



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evennett, David


Allason, Rupert
Farr, Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Franks, Cecil


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gardiner, Sir George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boswell, Tim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hayes, Jerry


Canavan, Dennis
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cox, Tom
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cryer, Bob
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James


Dicks, Terry
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dixon, Don
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Lamond, James


Durant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)






Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Skinner, Dennis


Marlow, Tony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Speller, Tony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Morley, Elliot
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mudd, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, Sir John


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Ray


Raffan, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Rossi, Sir Hugh



Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider, as you no doubt will, the stunt that we have just witnessed, I suggest that there are two points that you might like to bear in mind. The first is the time at which the television cameras stop showing the proceedings in the Chamber. There is a definite interest for those who do not wish good news to be announced in the House to prolong the proceedings so that there is no longer live coverage of them.
Secondly, bearing in mind what you said before the Division in relation to points of order, may I ask you to consider the rumours that have come to my ears at least that there might have been a statement this afternoon about the matter had the Labour party wished to have one —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Will you consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, remembering that if there is shown to be substance in it, that would shed an entirely new light on the behaviour of the Opposition?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I cannot deal with rumours.

Mr. O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware, following that time-wasting smear from the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), that had the Government wished, they could have made a statement in the House at 3.30 and announced what they would regard as good news in prime television time? We requested through the usual channels that such a statement be made, but that was declined. That is the truth of the matter.
The four-page answer to the question is of such complexity that it requires the House to give it its considered opinion and concern. So it is important that the Government business managers should come to the House and explain what they propose to do about this state of affairs.
From a rough reading of the answer, I am led to believe that there will be in excess of 2,000 redundancies, with a sizeable number of people having to be moved across the United Kingdom. This is a major issue of security, defence and economic significance and the Government cannot escape that fact.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): In the absence of the Leader of the House, may I clarify two points? First, it may be for the benefit of the House if the usual channels had discussions following the exchanges that have taken place in the last few minutes. Secondly, I shall report those exchanges to the Secretary of State for Defence. I must emphasise that discussions took place this morning and that it was understood that a statement would be required only if Rosyth was closed. Rosyth is not closed.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I should like to read the letter that I have received from the Minister of State. Without going into all of it, I wish to record how insulting the procedure adopted by the Government has been to the House. They held a press conference at 3.30 and the letter was put on the Letter Board for myself and other hon. Members. The letter, which partially explains the situation, says at the end:
I would be grateful if you would treat this as in confidence until the announcement has been made.
We are asked to treat in confidence matters that are in the public domain. That is an insult to the House and to all our procedures. We should receive from the Government a promise that a statement on the subject will be made this evening.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to a stunt. I did not take part in the vote because, like several hon. Members, I hesitated to vote for a motion that would make people leave the Strangers' Gallery. Such motions and points of order—to which you have listened, Mr. Speaker, very courteously—would not have arisen had not the House been treated with utter contempt. If we are not to have the necessary statement, as a last resort hon. Members have a duty and responsibility to their constituents to ensure that their voice is heard by means of motions, points of order, or any other means.

Sir David Steel: Further to the point or order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip told us something about the past. Will he say what the Government propose to do and whether there will be a statement tomorrow, as the House wishes?

Mr. Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question arises from the smears of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). The rules of the House state that we should not refer to the Press Gallery or the Strangers' Gallery. Is it within the rules that, in such a serious matter, an hon. Gentleman can suggest that concern about thousands of jobs being at stake is expressed simply to play to the cameras in television prime time? That is an outrageous and offensive suggestion, especially by a right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to hold a position of prestige within his party. Can the rules relating to Galleries and the media be extended to television cameras?

Mr. Speaker: I think that I shall now close the debate by saying that this may serve as a lesson to the whole House and that, in future, important statements should be made in the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1608) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Helicopters and Heliports

Ms. Kate Hoey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to helicopter safety and air traffic control; to amend the law relating to planning controls on heliports; to protect the environment by restricting noise levels and controlling the use of helicopters; to assign responsibilities and duties in relation to helicopters; and for connected purposes.
It is widely acknowledged that the law relating to helicopter movements and landing sites is unsatisfactory. Under the General Development Order, operators can use temporary or ad hoc sites for landing and take off for up to 28 days a year without planning permission, or consent from the Civil Aviation Authority. The days can be consecutive and there is no restriction on the number of movements. Helicopters can land on and take off from any site, so long as the pilot regards it as safe. They can use gardens, car parks, roofs of buildings, and so on. Planning permission may be required for the construction of hangars or landing pads, but it is not required when landing or taking off is incidental to the main use of the land—for example, when it is from an office building or a private house.
No one is responsible for monitoring that ad hoc use of helicopters and it is easy for the 28-day rule to be breached. The noise review working party of the Department of the Environment stated that the use of helicopters at private landing sites had greatly increased in recent years and was expected to increase further. However, because there is no requirement for the CAA to monitor helicopter overflights, especially in the central London zone, there is no record of landings, movements or routes flown.
For safety reasons, the CAA restricts single-engined helicopters in London to defined routes, especially following the River Thames. However, twin-engined helicopters are not restricted to routes and can fly anywhere over London in accordance with air traffic control instructions. Both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities have been pressing the Government for licensing controls on commercial services to be given to a representative Londonwide control authority, which would consult local authorities.
Although a London helicopter advisory committee has recently been set up, its terms of reference do not include drawing up a Londonwide policy on helicopters. There is clearly a weakness with regard to strategic planning policy on the location and control of heliport and helipad facilities in London. The London planning advisory committee, set up after the abolition of the Greater London council, did not include a policy on heliports in its 1988 strategic planning advice for London; nor did the Secretary of State's planning guidance for London.
Helicopters create a particularly unpleasant and disturbing noise because of the volume, pitch and type of sound produced—the characteristic blade slap. The effect is that helicopters generate greater fears of crashing, induce feelings of visual intrusion and are generally perceived as more annoying than fixed-wing aircraft. In addition, there are problems in relation to measuring the noise because there is no consensus on a formula. According to the Airfields Advisory Federation, a widely


respected independent organisation, the current Government standards are widely regarded as outdated, and were not originally developed for helicopters.
Objection to helicopters on the basis of noise goes far beyond the simple syndrome of "not in my back yard", or nimbyism. The effects can be psychologically damaging and stressful for those living and working in close proximity to where the helicopters are used. The length of the Thames riverside is plagued by helicopters as it is considered the most suitable location for heliports and helipads. However, in its planning guidance to boroughs, the Department of the Environment specifically draws attention to the river being one of London's greatest assets and asks boroughs to give particular attention to the character of any development proposed on or near the river. That is precisely what boroughs from Richmond to Tower Hamlets want to do, but they do not have the powers to control the increasing environmental pollution from helicopters.
The River Thames is being allowed to become the noise sewer of London. A public inquiry into the plans for Cannon street heliport last autumn showed how strong the opposition to an increase in helicopter use in London was among people who live and work there. Any day now we expect the Secretary of State's decision on that proposed heliport. I hope that he refuses permission. A couple of weeks ago, the London Docklands development corporation applied for a helipad facility on Trinity Buoy wharf in docklands. As it is its own planning authority, it will be seeking permission from itself. I urge the Secretary of State to call in that application as a matter of urgency.
Surely no one sees the increase in helicopter facilities as an answer to London's traffic problems. Everybody, including the Department of the Environment, puts it way down the list of priorities in transport policies. But slowly and steadily, by stealth, more and more private individuals and businesses are making use of the helicopter to fly their way out of congestion.
I believe that the benefits, in terms of the numbers of users and time savings, can be argued as being small compared with the costs of the noise impact and environmental concerns. Overflying helicopters represent a noisy, intrusive assault on quality of life. Each flight disrupts and disturbs literally thousands of people. The economic growth that that flight would have to generate in

order to lead to a net increase in quality of life would have to be massive. However, challenged to demonstrate overriding need, the applicant in the Cannon street case last year said that the heliport was necessary, for example, to speed a London architect's trip to examine brick samples in Wales.
In 1984, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that he was terminating the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. He said:
Noise can be a potent destroyer of the quality of life … Helicopters seem to have a special vibrating noise …in the light of the environmental disturbance caused by the service we could not justify allowing it to continue in operation".
If that was true of flights between Heathrow and Gatwick, it must be no less true of flights over the much more densely populated centres of our cities.
The final part of my Bill would clarify the registering of complaints, a process which at the moment is complex, confusing and unpublished. Time after time, the buck is passed between the CAA and the Department of Transport. A constituent of mine from the Waterloo area had her complaint passed backwards and forwards only to be referred to the British Helicopter Advisory Board, a company representing helicopter manufacturers and operators. Helicopter operators routinely and flagrantly ignore the routing and other regulations. Only the most persistent members of the public are likely to have their complaint registered. They need to sort that out.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill and take a step towards recognition that helicopter use in urban areas needs to be reduced and that helicopters and cities are not compatible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Kate Hoey, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

HELICOPTERS AND HELIPORTS

Ms. Kate Hoey accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to helicopter safety and air traffic control; to amend the law relating to planning controls on heliports; to protect the environment by restricting noise levels and controlling the use of helicopters; to assign responsibilities and duties in relation to helicopters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 October and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is my first Finance Bill. Previously, the attractions of serving on the Finance Bill Committee seemed somewhat abstruse, but I knew that many hon. Members returned, their enthusiasm unabated, year after year to serve on it. Therefore, it was with some interest that I engaged in the exercise to see what was so entrancing. Now that I have joined that happy band, I have been initiated into all sorts of obscure and riveting mysteries such as stock lending, manufactured dividends and approved share option trusts. We have had an occasional insight into the Opposition's taxation policies, although the insight was generally provided by the Government rather than the Opposition. It has been a useful exercise.
Those of us who have seen the Bill through from the beginning to the end have, by and large, seen serious debate undertaken in a serious spirit. There have been disagreements on important matters, but that is inevitable. The debate has, however, been conducted in a spirit of good humour from both sides of the House. I now begin to see the attractions of these proceedings, which provoke so much devotion among their followers.
My hon. Friends the Economic Secretary and the Minister of State are veterans of Finance Bills, but for them, as for me, this is the first occasion on the Treasury Bench, and I pay a warm tribute to the hard work that they have put in, both upstairs in Committee and in the still watches of last night on Report.
The Bill has received a thorough consideration. We have not always accepted the arguments made for amendments, but that is hardly surprising. Frequently, we have accepted arguments and have responded constructively to many of the amendments. All these issues have been properly ventilated and explored in a useful exercise.
We have introduced several new clauses and amendments since Second Reading. A number of those were foreshadowed in the Budget statement, but were not ready for the original publication of the Bill. For example, clause 5 provides for a reduction in the rate of pool betting duties from 40 to 37½per cent. That follows proposals for a Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which was announced by the Pools Promoters Association. That subject was discussed, shortly before we pulled stumps last night, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). My memory of what took place at that hour is somewhat hazy, but I seem to remember that they were the protagonists in that discussion.
Clause 65 gives effect to the Budget announcement of a new relief from income and corporation tax to encourage business gifts of equipment to schools and other educational establishments. This is a practical measure intended to give help to business and to help education and business work in partnership.
Since Second Reading, the Bill has gained an entirely new part IV, dealing with stamp duty. Clauses 105 to 110 abolish a raft of minor stamp duties. Last year we announced our intention to abolish stamp duty on securities to coincide with the introduction of paperless trading and the TAURUS system. Part IV means that stamp duties will be abolished on all property except land and buildings. That continues the splendid tradition in recent years whereby in each Finance Bill the Government abolish at least one tax. We have exceeded expectations on this occasion by abolishing not one or two taxes but a multitude of stamp duties, and I am proud to be the begetter of that measure.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not my hon. Friend think that there is something rather quaint about our tax system which has no fewer than 88 reliefs and allowances against the six main taxes which, in the current year, cost about £87 billion, while the six main taxes in themselves raised only £82 billion? To my simple mind, that shows that either all taxes are twice as high as they need be, or we have twice as many taxes as we truly need.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. For the first time we have set out in the Red Book the effective value of the various tax reliefs so that exactly the sort of comparison that my hon. Friend has made can be made. That does not involve a judgment on whether it is right or wrong to have such tax reliefs, but it does at least enable there to be informed discussion on the relative merits. I make no secret of our view that, in general, it is better to reduce reliefs and reduce the rates of tax. [Interruption.] That is a general proposition. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) agrees with it.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: indicated assent.

Mr. Maude: That is splendid. We now have full consensus on the matter and that enables us to proceed with renewed confidence.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point and it is also right that every Chancellor of the Exchequer should have in his mind when he frames his Budget the balance between overall rates of taxation and the reliefs that are given against taxation.

Mr. Tony Favell: This is a good point at which to ask my hon. Friend about the framing of future Budgets. It was announced last week that, in future, budgetary plans for taxation and expenditure will be submitted to a European Commission star chamber. Can my hon. Friend say when that will be done? Will it be done before the Budget statement is made to the House? If there is a conflict between the House and the Commission, whose view will prevail?

Mr. Maude: I do not recognise from my hon. Friend's description the exact proposition to which he is referring. I am not aware of any intention by the Government to submit their processes to such a procedure. Perhaps my hon. Friend will elucidate.

Mr. Favell: The Daily Telegraph of 10 July said:
Mr. Lamont, Chancellor, yesterday agreed to submit Budget plans for taxation and expenditure to an annual EC 'star chamber' of Finance Ministers responsible for bringing the 12 disparate national economies into line.

Mr. Maude: There is no proposition that we should submit what we put in our Budget for anyone's scrutiny before we present it to Parliament. That would be a wholly intolerable proposition. I reassure my hon. Friend that we have no intention of doing such a thing. It has been agreed that, after the event, we will send the Commission a version of our medium-term financial strategy, which is a broad part of the Red Book, to help the Commission in reaching a judgment on how convergence is progressing. However, I unequivocally assure the House that we have no intention of submitting our Budget, with all its detailed fiscal measures, for scrutiny other than by the House.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Financial Secretary has not studied the draft treaty on European economic and monetary union, but one of its articles clearly states that the budget balances of all member states will have to be examined by the Commission which, after observing certain procedures, can then make recommendations regarding those budget balances. That represents a transfer of power over fiscal policy to the Commission, which will be empowered to make recommendations.

Mr. Maude: I am reluctant to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable in such matters. He referred accurately to the draft treaty, which is the previous presidency's working document. At this stage, not a single word of it is agreed. It is a working document, and, as I told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee a week or two ago, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Therefore, nothing in the draft treaty is taken as having the agreement of any member state.
Even if the draft treaty were agreed, it is a different proposition to suggest that a member state's overall budget balance should be subject to scrutiny and examination by institutions of the European Community after the event. If there is to be economic and monetary union—and I am not in a position to judge whether there will be—the convergence of budget deficits will be important. Everyone taking part in the negotiations agrees that monetary union could not be sustained if excessive budget deficits existed among member states.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The draft treaty makes reference to excessive budget deficits and, if the United Kingdom's deficit proved excessive, is it not the case that the Commission could consider that situation, make recommendations and, at the end of the day, bring a stop to that excessive deficit?

Mr. Maude: Such a provision may be contained in the draft treaty, but it is not agreed. It is agreed that if there were to be full currency union, it could not be sustained if excessive budget deficits existed among member states. We have argued consistently, as have other Community members, that the best sanction against excessive deficits is not binding limits and rigid, centrist, prescriptive rules but the market. Provided such a deficit is transparent, a member state would have considerable difficulty in financing it, so the market will provide its own remedy. That argument remains to be resolved. Some member states believe that binding limits and prescriptive centrist rules will be necessary, but we disagree. We will continue to discuss that aspect, but I assure the right hon.

Gentleman and the House that the text of the draft treaty has not yet been agreed by the United Kingdom or by any other member state.
Clause 69 and schedule 15, which were added in Committee, extend the period over which companies can carry back trading losses and set them against profits from one year to three years. We believe that that will be particularly welcome to companies which, although fundamentally sound and with healthy profit records, are experiencing losses during the recession. That measure alone will be worth a quarter of a billion pounds to companies in 1992–93.
That brings me to the core of the Bill, which remains the same as it was on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor described his Budget as a Budget for business, and the Bill reflects that priority, easing the burden of taxation across the whole spectrum of industry.
Clause 23 cuts the main rate of corporation tax for 1990 from 35 to 34 per cent., reducing this year's tax bills by £380 million. Clause 15 halves the rating period for reclaiming VAT on bad debts, reducing it to one year. That means bad debt relief, which will give traders a cash flow boost of £340 million this year.
We are also providing help for next year, when the recovery will be under way. Clause 24, one of the shortest and simplest—but most splendid and significant—provisions in the Bill, sets the main rate of corporation tax for 1991 at 33 per cent. That gives the United Kingdom the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community, and among G7 countries. It means that, next year, companies will have an extra £83 million at their disposal to invest as they choose.
That was one of the issues on which the Government had an amicable but frank disagreement with Opposition Members. They wanted to give increased allowances to some forms of investment, which would, in our view, have taken investment choices out of the hands of business, where they belong. As we discovered when we examined the Opposition's amendment, it would have meant a higher rate of corporation tax overall—which was not heavily advertised by Opposition Members when the amendment was moved.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we cannot increase any taxation by means of the Finance Bill; we are prevented from doing so by the money resolution.

Mr. Maude: The House will have heard that explanation, and can decide for itself how much weight to attach to it.
The Bill also helps smaller businesses. Clause 25 raises the profits limit for the small companies rate, and for marginal relief, by 25 per cent. That will benefit 30,000 smaller companies, and means that the limits have been raised by 150 per cent. since 1988. Clause 68 allows unincorporated businesses to set any trading losses against capital gains of the same or the following year.
Those are the highlights of the business measures in the Bill. To them must be added a number of deregulatory measures, announced in the Budget, which do not require legislation—such as the raising of the VAT threshold to its highest-ever level in real terms and the introduction of quarterly payments of PAYE and national insurance contributions for some 600,000 small employers.


Together, those measures fully justify my right hon. Friend's description of his Budget as a Budget for business.

Mr. James Wallace: As I recall, the amount of relief that those measures would give businesses, in particular small businesses—according to the figures given at the time of the Budget—was exceeded by the amount that businesses would have to spend because of the Government's decision to impose a 10·9 per cent. uniform business rate increase in England and Wales. How does the Financial Secretary justify that extra imposition?

Mr. Maude: A great many taxes are—to use the technical phrase—buoyant: they increase their burden year by year to reflect inflation, with no need for positive Government decisions. Those taxes, which are levied on a percentage basis, have the effect to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, without the Government's making any positive decision.
It has always been understood, since the introduction of the uniform business rate, that it could not be increased by more than the rate of inflation. That is a much better deal for business than the deal offered by the old business rating system, under which businesses in some parts of the country were penalised by swingeing increases levied by hopelessly irresponsible councils with a malevolent approach to business. Some of our great cities have been devastated: swathes of land have been laid bare by councils that have levied such high rates that business has simply moved away. Businesses that suffered under such appalling regimes will have regarded last year's increase, which was limited to the rate of inflation, as relatively benign.
I have referred to the measures on business taxation and I should refer briefly to other measures, particularly on the themes of reform and fairness. Clauses 29 to 31 tackle different sorts of benefits in kind and, quite properly, they have generated a good deal of debate and careful examination. However, in all that debate, I do not think that anyone has sought to challenge the basic principle underlying our approach which is that, as far as possible, payments in benefits in kind should bear the same taxation as equivalent payments in cash. That is the only fair approach and I believe that it is widely accepted as the right approach.
Another matter of fairness is the taxation of non-resident trusts. Clauses 78 to 87 and schedules 16 to 18 are designed to counter avoidance of capital gains tax through the use of non-resident trusts. It is one of the technical areas in the Bill where the Government have benefited from helpful comments from some of the representative bodies. As a result of that, we introduced a number of amendments in Committee and on Report.
The Budget process is about deciding what the Government should spend and how they should raise the money to do it. That means that the Government have to cost every one of their proposals. They have to do so publicly and openly and then, openly and honestly, levy taxation to pay for that spending. The results are there for Parliament to scrutinise and for the public to judge. Curiously, the Opposition have been more reticent about their proposals. Nothing has been costed, nothing has been added up, but everything is a priority. So, as a service to the public, we costed the Opposition's proposals for

them. We did so very modestly, with no fee charged and no exaggeration. We concluded that Labour's spending programme amounts to no less than an extra £35 billion—equivalent to an extra 15p—

Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has Government speculation about Labour's public spending programme got to do with the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is quite right. I hope that the Minister will set a good example by sticking to the content of the Bill.

Mr. Maude: I was endeavouring—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is relevant to the rate of taxation that is to be applied by the Finance Bill. If the policies that were—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our practice on Third Reading of any Bill is to confine the debate to the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Maude: I am endeavouring to do that. I am endeavouring to give to the House an account of the deliberations in Committee when we spent a good deal of time discussing the standard rate of income tax. We had an interesting and illuminating debate on the clauses dealing with income tax which enabled us to draw attention to the fact that Labour's spending proposals would mean, unless they are wrongly costed, that there would be a 15p increase in income tax.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister realises that if I allow him to discuss these matters, I have to allow other hon. Members to rebut his arguments. We would then start a debate not about Third Reading but about entirely different matters. I hope that the Minister will recognise what I have said and will observe it.

Mr. Maude: I submit myself fully to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and accept entirely what you have said. The House might welcome the opportunity to allow Opposition Members to try to rebut what I have said, but I think that there will be sighs of relief from Opposition Members that they have been prevented from commenting on the costings.

Dr. John Marek: rose—

Mr. Maude: I see that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is straining at the leash to leap to his feet and tell us in what particulars our costings of the Labour party's proposals are wrong.

Dr. Marek: I want to help the Financial Secretary. Clearly, it has escaped him that the clause to increase value added tax from 15 to 17·5 per cent. is contained in the Bill, so I invite him to discuss that. It would certainly not be out of order for us to know why the Government increased VAT.

Mr. Maude: I shall be glad to discuss that if the hon. Gentleman is keen to do so. We have already debated it and a further debate will not illuminate any dark secrets which have not been properly discussed.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall give way in a moment.
We increased VAT to raise £3·9 billion—if my recollection is correct—and to ensure that the books balanced when we reduced the headline figure of the community charge by £140 for every charge payer. It was an open policy which we have fully justified. We have had amusing debates about it and it is now on the statute book. It was especially interesting that when we announced that step in the Budget, the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition was to huff and puff, to say that it was outrageous and monstrous and some such farrago of nonsense about how awful it was to tax children's sweets. A Labour Government introduced VAT 15 years ago—a fact which appeared to have escaped him at the time. However, when we had discussed the increase in VAT we waited with bated breath for the Opposition to vote against us and to try to vote down the outrageous measure to increase VAT from 15 to 17·5 per cent. on, among other things, children's sweets. But what did they do? They did nothing—one might almost say that they dithered. I am happy to renew the debate at this stage for the hon. Member for Wrexham, but I fancy that we shall have the better of the argument now as then.

Mr. Sayeed: May I ask my hon. Friend to deal with two matters? First, the Labour party did not vote against the change in the rate of VAT and, secondly, whatever promises Labour Governments have made prior to elections, every one of them has increased the basic rate of income tax.

Mr. Maude: On the first point, I confirm that my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party failed to oppose the measure to increase the standard rate of VAT. However, I must correct him on the second point, because there are two exceptions to his proposition. The Attlee Government of 1945–51 reduced income tax by 5 per cent. before increasing it again by 2½ per cent. thus making it 47½ per cent. The other exception involves the Ramsay MacDonald Government in 1924 who were in office for nine months and did not get round to increasing the rate. I am sure that they would have done so if they had had the chance, but, happily for the nation, they were routed out of office before they had the opportunity. However, my hon. Friend is right—in every other case Labour Governments have increased the standard rate of income tax.
Research discloses that in their manifestos to the British public Labour Governments oddly enough made no mention of such proposals. They were silent about them and, indeed, the impression given by the then leaders of the Labour party was that there would be no general increases in the rate of income tax. Indeed, the statements made by former leaders of the Labour party bear an uncanny resemblance to those made by the present leader: "There will be no increase in the basic rate of income tax, honest, guv. Nothing like that—we've never done that before. Not the sort of thing we do." However, they have done it every time.
We argue that under Labour's spending plans as they have been costed by us—and they have not been disputed by the Labour party—it is absolutely inevitable—[Interruption.] I issue a challenge to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Let him

dispute our costings of his party's plans. Under Labour's spending plans, it is inevitable that any future Labour Government would increase the standard rate of income tax as previous Labour Governments have done.

Mr. Chris Smith: I give the Financial Secretary a categorical assurance, as we have done consistently in the past few years, that the incoming Labour Government have no intention of raising the basic rate of income tax. While we are on the subject of the burden of taxation, will the Financial Secretary state what percentage of gross domestic product the tax burden represented in 1979 and what it will represent after the Bill is passed?

Mr. Maude: I shall answer that straightforwardly. The burden of taxation increased in the two years after this Government took office in 1979, because we had to pay off the massive burden of debt which the previous Labour Government had stored up for future taxpayers. When we talk about the burden of taxation it is important to bear it in mind that we are not talking only about the burden on today's taxpayers. When Governments run up debts, that places a burden on future taxpayers, so it is a question of when taxpayers have to pick up the bill. Under Labour Governments it is the future generations which have to pick up an ever bigger tax burden in order to pay off the debts of those profligate and incontinent Labour Governments.
Certainly, we increased the tax burden in our first two years in office in order to control the massive public debt placed on the country by the previous Labour Government. Since then, we have consistently and successfully reduced the tax burden.

Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary is incorrect—the figures appear to have escaped him. When the Government came into office the tax burden as a share of GDP was 34·5 per cent. It is now 37·5 per cent. Of course, it went up dramatically in the first few years under the present Government—it stayed high and went up again in 1989–90 as a direct result of the introduction of the poll tax. If he examines the figures, the Financial Secretary will see that it rose towards the end of the 1980s as well as at the start.

Mr. Maude: By chance, I have the figures before me for greater accuracy and for the enlightenment of the House. It might be helpful if I read them.
In 1978–79 the tax burden as a percentage of GDP was 34¼ per cent. It then increased, and I freely confess that. We have made no bones about that and I can justify it in any circumstances. It went up in 1981–82 to 40 per cent. and that was to pay off the debt left by the previous Labour Government, a crippling burden of debt for which the hon. Gentleman should apologise rather than seek to pick an argument. From that high point in 1981–82 of 40 per cent., the burden of taxation has fallen. It has not fallen every year, and the hon. Gentleman was right to point out that in 1986–87 and 1987–88 it went up from 38¼ per cent. to 38½ per cent. Again, between 1989–90 and 1990–91—as forecast—it went up from 37½ per cent. to 37¾ per cent. That increase may be what the hon. Gentleman is calling in aid for his proposition, but it is timid support.
The clear trend is from a high point of 40 per cent. levied to pay off the burden of debt left by the Labour Government to 37¾ per cent. last year. We intend to continue that trend.

Mr. Wallace: For clarification, do those figures include local taxation or only national taxation? If they include local taxation, what impact does the poll tax have on them?

Mr. Maude: They include total taxation, including local authority revenue, if that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real effects of a Labour Government are as follows: the dead go unburied, the rubbish goes uncollected, the sick go unattended, and the International Monetary Fund ends up running our economy?

Mr. Maude: Certainly. My hon. Friend is exactly right. If one wants to see what a Labour Government leads to, one should take a train trip to Liverpool. One then sees in microcosm on the streets of Liverpool memories of 1978–79, the winter of discontent. There was rule by the unions. The Labour party was absolutely in hock to the unions and did what it was told. There was obedience at every point. The British people will want to avoid that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: rose—

Mr. Maude: You anticipate my next move, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is to return to the Bill. It has put into effect my right hon. Friend's Budget, which was a Budget for business and a Budget which has been welcomed by business, which is valuable to business and which will set British business on the road to recovery, growth and prosperity in the 1990s in the same way that our Budgets in the early 1980s did for the rest of the 1980s. Having built a platform and a firm foundation of low inflation, we saw economic growth at levels that exceeded those of almost everywhere else in Europe. For the first time since the war, our rate of growth was faster than that of France and of Germany. That is what we shall see if we continue on this path in the 1990s.
The Finance Bill and the Budget are essential parts of our proposals and foundations. When the British people have the chance to choose between these economic and taxation policies and the profligacy and incompetence of the Labour party, they will unhesitatingly choose us.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary has a pretty crummy line in political knock-about, although it is of a slightly higher calibre than that of his immediate predecessor. His immediate predecessor was pretty savagely treated after last year's Finance Bill by being demoted to the post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I forecast no such future for the present Financial Secretary or for the other junior members of the Treasury team.
It is fair to say that during the passage of the Bill, when we discussed the details of the measures rather than some of the broader and more contentious political matters which lay behind them, Treasury Ministers responded to the issues of detail with unfailing courtesy and with as high a degree of accuracy as one could expect from Ministers. We appreciate that.
The Bill has the authentic hallmark of the Government who produced it. This is probably the last Finance Bill Third Reading in which I shall speak from the Opposition Benches, so it may be right to treat the House to a metaphor. It is as if the Finance Bill were a little furry animal trapped and staring fixedly into the headlights of an oncoming lorry made up of Britain's economic problems. Blinking into the headlights, the Bill completely fails to respond to the problems. The context is this.

Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Baker): It is an oxymoron.

Mr. Brown: I do not know about the oxy. The hon. Gentleman, being a Government Whip, probably has more experience of dealing with the rest than I have.
The economic context is that output is falling, the economy is contracting, investment is forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fall by 10 per cent. in 1991, and unemployment is rising, as it has done for the past 14 consecutive months. The Chancellor tells us that it is a price worth paying. He may believe that it is a price worth paying if someone else pays it. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh cheerfully at that, which is generous of them. Unemployment is the price that they will have to pay for the way in which the Government have managed the economy.
We still have a trade deficit in spite of the recession. The previous Labour Government, to whom the Financial Secretary so derisively referred, managed to maintain, in spite of all the difficulties with oil pricing, a manufacturing surplus every year. Yet the Government have managed to turn that into a deficit and they look set to continue the deficit.
We still have high interest rates which have led to record business failures and to 44,000 homes being repossessed last year. The recession is suppressing inflation, but the underlying pressures are still there and are stoked up by public utilities' privatisation and the consequent price rises. The tax burden still falls unfairly on those of ordinary means rather than on those most able to bear their fair share.
As the juggernaut of economic problems steamrollers along the road, the little furry Finance Bill sits staring back at it.
Surely the most striking point is the dislocation between the measures in the Bill and the problems facing the British economy.

Mr. David Winnick: What help is given to those on ordinary incomes who have had a very modest decrease in direct taxation but who face the burden of ever-increasing price rises, certainly for essential services such as gas, water, electricity, fares and dental charges? Only last week someone who lives in my borough complained to me that, because he is on a modest income and cannot be exempted, he had to pay £140 for dental treatment. What help is being given to such people when they face tremendous increases which they cannot get out of?

Mr. Brown: There is nothing in the Finance Bill for people in the position that my hon. Friend has outlined. If anything, the Bill makes matters marginaly worse for them because there is a 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT. In indirect taxation, the burden falls on every citizen, regardless of his income, who has to purchase taxed products. Not only has


the distribution of the tax system moved to place the burden on those least able to bear it, but the substantial increases in utility charges prior to privatisation have had a regressive effect. There is nothing in the Bill to help my hon. Friend's constituents.
We are confronted by the highest number of business failures on record—66 per cent. up on the equivalent half year last year. Every hon. Member has constituents who are affected by that, and the matter was discussed in the House yesterday. The Financial Secretary boasted about clauses 23 to 25, which introduce a concession on corporation tax. It is a modest counter-cyclical measure, but it is not much use to businesses which are in trouble because of the Government's high interest rate policy and which will have little charge to corporation tax to worry about. Indeed, the owners of those businesses might wish that they had.
As many Opposition Members have mentioned, there is rising unemployment. The Bill has nothing to say about that apart from clause 58, which says, "Let them build toll roads." If that is a public works programme to help to bring down unemployment, I can only say that it will not work.

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Brown: On toll roads? I give way to the hon. Gentleman on that.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be talking about unemployment. He could help the House a little bit by telling us about the latest version of the Labour party's view on the effect of the minimum wage proposition on unemployment. Does he accept the universal view of learned economic commentators that it must inevitably cause higher unemployment to a greater or lessser extent?

Mr. Brown: Clearly that point has nothing to do with Third Reading. It is tacky of the Government to suggest that to ensure a basic, decent standard of living—a rate of £3·40 an hour—is unjust and unreasonable. Our European partners can do it and the United States can do it, yet somehow we cannot. Instead of saying that he does not want his friends in the private sector to have to pay more money in wages, the Financial Secretary has the nerve to say to the House, "Oh, we are concerned about unemployment." The Conservative party is concerned about unemployment? Since when?

Mr. Maude: I note that the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from my proposition that a minimum wage would inevitably lose jobs and cause higher unemployment. That is the verdict of every learned commentator. Is it now the view of the Labour party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot find anything about the national minimum wage in the Bill. We ought not to discuss that. Let us not have another debate about it. Let us get back to the Finance Bill.

Mr. Brown: I dissent strongly from the Financial Secretary's suggestion; the evidence from our European partners and from the United States of America is enough for me. But I shall not be drawn down that road—[Interruption.]—because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have

asked me not to be. I shall respect the Chair, although Ministers find it difficult to do the same when it is not convenient for them.
Yesterday the Labour party forced a debate on banking supervision in the wake of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal. The Bill has something to say on investor protection. Clause 46 makes a modest proposition, setting out what most people thought that the law already was on the tax treatment of moneys paid into an insurance company for an investor protection scheme. That is welcome, in its way, but the dislocation of scale between that measure and the Government's inactivity on BCCI reveals their almost pathological unwillingness to tackle any of the major problems facing our country.
It looks as though the recession will not be shallow or short lived—although I suspect that one or two other things round this place may be shallow and short lived. In Paris the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Consumer spending led us into this recession"—
I take that to be the Chancellor's final verdict on the 1988 Budget, which, as the then Financial Secretary, he did so much to implement—
and I expect it to lead us out.
As an encouragement to consumer spending, he then slapped an extra 2·5 per cent. on VAT.
The Prime Minister, too, has focused on encouraging consumer spending. I understand that under his citizens charter there will be real and serious trouble for banks whose cash dispensers run out of banknotes over the weekend. Oh yes, that will get consumer spending going.
Ironically, with the possible exception of the offshore trust reforms, the only measure of strategic significance in the Bill is the VAT increase. That was designed to get us out of the worst taxation fiasco in modern times.
The Financial Secretary spoke of the number of taxes that the Government had abolished, but we hear much less from Ministers about the tax that they invented and created—the poll tax. If it had not been for the poll tax and the subsequent political problems of the Conservative party, there would have been no need for the 2·5 per cent. increase in the rate of VAT.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clear up a point of genuine confusion for me. He mentioned the offshore trust regime introduced in the Bill. He may remember speaking on clause 77, concerning the offshore trust regime, when he said:
I repeat that we have no plans to increase capital gains tax.
When I asked whether he intended to break the link between capital gains tax and income tax, he said:
I think that the implications of what I have said are clear. The hon. Gentleman has correctly followed the point to its logical conclusion." [Official Report, 7 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 683–84.]
On the other hand, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in an interview published about two weeks ago in the Financial Times, said:
In principle we would like to align the rate of capital gains tax with income tax, but the whole issue of capital gains tax is complex and still under review.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I did not say that.

Mr. Arbuthnot: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on capital gains tax and income tax? Does the Labour party have a policy?

Mr. Brown: Yes, we have. I believe that the hon. Gentleman quoted what the reporter said during the interview rather than what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that capital gains tax and income tax are not structured in the same way. Our specific proposals have been discussed in several debates, so I shall not go into the detail again. I can remember at least four Friday debates featuring the direct tax structures proposed by the Labour party, and I believe that the details are well understood, at least by every hon. Member attending this debate.
We have made it clear that the changes that we intend to make will be effected at a very early stage of the lifetime of the Labour Government. That is incompatible with trying to make parallel changes in the capital gains tax structure. I should firmly oppose that.
We have no specific proposals to increase capital gains tax. The hon. Gentleman has said before that an anomaly could be created, and of course he is correct. It would not be possible to bring the rates close together because of our proposed income tax banding structure. We could say that we would eradicate the anomaly over time or that we would live with it. I am giving the hon. Gentleman as honest an answer as I can: we shall live with the anomaly, knowing that in principle there may be an intellectual case against it. We shall have to live with it because of the different structures of the two taxes. My answer does not seem to delight the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what I heard the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) say from a sedentary position—that she did not say the words that appeared in the Financial Times? If she says that she was misquoted, of course I accept that. It would be good to have that at least on the record.

Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to do so.

Mr. Brown: The exchange has taken place and everybody seems happy. The hon. Gentleman has served on as many Finance Committees as I have, and I acknowledge and greatly respect his specialist interest in such matters.
I know that the taxation policies of the Labour party are fascinating to Conservative Members, because a number of them are paralleled in the Bill. I remember the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, roundly denouncing us for planning to freeze the married couple's allowance. Yet the Financial Secretary is presiding over a Bill that does precisely that. The then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—also denounced us for planning to abolish the higher rate of mortgage interest relief. Yet the Government have gone on to do exactly that.
It is a bit cheeky for the Conservative party to denounce us for our proposals and then, when they carry out those proposals, to say that they are justified and reasonable. I was much taken with the explanation that the Financial Secretary gave in Committee. He said that the difference was all about motivation. If the Labour party were doing those things, we would apparently be badly motivated, whereas when the Conservative party did the same things they were well motivated, so that made it all right. Perhaps it does; perhaps it does not. I must say to the Financial Secretary, in all kindness, that that was one of his more feeble arguments.
While we are talking about tax, we should probably draw a veil over the Government's pledge to reduce rates of direct taxation. Clause 21 takes up that point: it says that the rate of direct taxation will stay the same.
The Financial Secretary was good enough to refer to the Opposition's approach to the Bill. The approaches of the two major parties when in opposition have been somewhat different. The Labour party has taken the view that we should have our political arguments on the Floor of the House and that, within the bounds of the normal to and fro of political exchange, we should apply a more detailed and workmanlike scrutiny to the Bill in Committee. In Committee especially, we take our responsibilities as the official Opposition seriously, for the reason that there is no other forum in which these matters can be scrutinised in detail. I must say that I am not entirely sure that we are right to structure our debates as we do. I am not sure that it is right that there should be no other forum for scrutinising these matters, but that is the way in which we conduct our affairs at the moment, and so be it.
It is appropriate to thank the staff who worked for our Front-Bench team and those at the Labour party headquarters for all the help that they have given us in dealing with matters of detail and, in particular, to express the thanks of the Front-Bench team to Mr. Steve Tovey for his invaluable help. Our achievements are a credit to him, and any shortcomings are the fault of others.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: What achievements?

Mr. Brown: The Whip asks, "What achievements?" That is good of him, as I am about to list them. There are a number of matters of detail on which we feel that the Government—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Oh, really!

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the fact that I am discussing the contents of the Bill on Third Reading. I remind him that we are not supposed to be discussing anything else. If he is irritated by it, his best bet is to go and get a drink outside the Chamber.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for quite long enough, I shall probably take his advice. Quite honestly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Third Reading of a Finance Bill is hardly the time for the hon. Gentleman to be reading out a list of names and telling us of his approbation for all those who work in Transport house, or whatever the Labour party's headquarters is now called. That has nothing to do with the Finance Bill.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong; it has a substantial amount to do with the Finance Bill. The Government, for their part, have all the resources of the civil service behind them in bringing their policies —their version of those matters—to fruition. The Opposition have no such resources. I note that my counterpart on the foreign affairs team can obtain a briefing from the Foreign Office on a specific matter. If I try to obtain a briefing from the Inland Revenue, I am told that I cannot have direct access to the Government's professional advisers at the Revenue—not even on a matter that is not politically contentious—and that any advice that I require must come from the Financial Secretary. We do not regard the Financial Secretary—nice chap though he is, in many ways—as a neutral source.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The Whip seems to be criticising my remarks. I thought at first that he was going to suggest that the Financial Secretary was not a neutral source, but he seems to be taking issue with some other point that I made, and no doubt, on that, he is more knowledgeable than me.
There has been a range of successes, and it is right that the Labour party should take some pride in them. Remember that we have no realistic chance of voting the Government down in the Finance Bill Committee because that Committee's composition reflects the composition of the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: We nearly did.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend reminds me that, on one occasion, we almost did. Usually, however, our only method of securing concessions from the Government is by reasoned argument. I suppose that it is some small tribute to those in charge of the Government's affairs that that succeeds on occasion—in fact, on quite a few occasions. The proposal in respect of bad debt relief for VAT and the reduction of the period from two years to one is exactly what we pressed for.
On offshore tax, my own stirring contributions to our debates on tax avoidance last year clearly shamed a rather recalcitrant Government into eventual action. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will take particular pleasure in the concessions made to members of the acting profession, both on agency fees and in respect of the concessions that followed this year. On the question of personal allowances, the concession of the Minister of State, Treasury, gained in response to what is now our new clause 30, is welcome, and we thank her for it.
On employee share schemes, last year we tabled a new clause containing what we felt was the innovative idea that a new selective executive share option scheme should not be allowed unless there was an all-employee scheme in place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears particularly to have liked that idea and this year the Government have introduced precisely such a proposal. On beneficial loans, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, among many others, last year raised the anomaly of a tax charge arising where employees had mortgages at market rates from their employer. The tax treatment of that issue, which created the anomaly, has been addressed in the Bill.
On donations to charity, last year we said that a £5 million upper limit on gift aid payments was fatuous and that we should either have a realistic upper limit or none at all. This year, the limit has been abolished. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was grateful for the concession that he received yesterday in respect of developers' self-supply. We even managed to get some drafting amendments, to schedule 12(3), accepted. Usually, our amendments are rejected on the ground that they would make the Bill worse.
Compare all that constructive and detailed—albeit perhaps not particularly exciting—stuff with the behaviour of the Conservative party when in the same position. I have been re-reading, as someone in my position should, a book by Lord Barnett called "Inside the Treasury" in which he discusses the way in which such matters were

dealt with when the Labour party was in government. Discussing the hours spent in the Finance Bill Committee, Lord Barnett has this to say, on pages 55 and 56:
During those long hours in committee, often from 4 pm to 8 am the following morning"—
I should point out that the Conservative party could not have kept its Members there until 8 am the following day—
I managed to keep my temper in the face of intense provocation from Opposition backbenchers like Graham Page, Nigel Lawson, Peter Rees, Ian Gow and Nicholas Ridley. They would go on and on, coming up with what they assumed to be hilariously funny examples of anomalies, such as the Capital Transfer Tax consequences of me being knocked down by a bus. Judging by the laughter of other Conservative Members, they clearly found this kind of stuff very funny. I could only feel grateful that I had missed out on public school debating societies.
That allows us to contrast nicely the two different ways of dealing with these matters—the responsible, sensible, workmanlike approach of the Labour party, and the approach adopted by the Conservative party.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear contrast, but does he not think that the real contrast to be drawn is between a Parliament in which the Government have a majority of 100 and a Parliament of the kind to which he is no doubt referring, in which the Government have a small majority or no majority at all? And how does he see next year's Finance Bill shaping up?

Mr. Brown: I certainly hope to see next year's Finance Bill from the other side of the Chamber. As for the difference in the size of the parliamentary majority, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the Opposition are labouring under a disadvantage because there are substantially more Conservatives in this place than there are of us. Nevertheless, I think that we have handled the cards in our hand very well, and our achievements are made all the more remarkable by the fact. I must also thank the Back Benchers who served with us on the Standing Committee.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I hope that my hon. Friend is not making a virtue out of what he has just outlined. As someone who was a Government Whip when we had a majority of only one, may I say that if this Government could not keep their troops in Committee until 8 am, some of us would like to know why we did not try to keep the Committee sitting through the early hours.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend's willingness to serve on next year's Finance Bill has been noted. The point that I was making is that we could have done that. We had a straight choice of tactics between filibustering in an ignorant and long-winded way—something that none of us would ever do—or, alternatively, having an informal day-to-day timetabling agreement with the Government to make measured and steady progress for which in return we would be able to subject each and every clause to detailed examination.

Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a sensible comment.

Mr. Favell: I will make a very sensible intervention. I am sorry that I was not a member of this year's Finance Bill Committee and was unable to listen to the hon.


Gentleman. However, is not the truth of the matter that the Opposition could not really oppose the Bill because it contains nothing but eminent good sense?

Mr. Brown: Actually, the Bill contains a substantial number of our proposals. We opposed the Bill in a reasoned and workmanlike way. Our only debate is between the relative merits of filibustering so causing a guillotine to be introduced which results in no debate on the rest of the Bill and taking the responsibility to probe everything carefully, including the schedules. We chose the second approach. That was the right thing to do and it has paid off. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has not dissented from that. If he is still a Member next year, we will see whether he can serve on the Finance Bill Committee in opposition so that he can address the practicalities of the two different approaches. I am willing and able with my hon. Friends to have a go at handling whichever approach he decides to adopt.
I have served on the Committee of four Finance Bills under two distinguished and very able shadow Chief Secretaries to the Treasury. I have learnt a lot from them and it has been a privilege to serve under them. It has also been my privilege to serve with three good comrades—if it is not unfashionable to say that nowadays in the Labour party. I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury, for Wrexham and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for their comradeship, support and their contributions to the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has done so much to help my colleagues with their decision making. She has made an invaluable contribution to the Bill. Contrary to legend, she is quite a tender-hearted character. I know that she was worried about that little furry creature to which I referred in my metaphor at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill. I referred to that little furry creature and the Government's response to the problems of the British economy and said that the little creature was about to be run over by a great juggernaut. I have some cheering news for my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme: there is a bandwagon behind that juggernaut, and that bandwagon is ours.

Sir Giles Shaw: I hesitate to intrude on the panegyric for fellow members of the Finance Bill Committee provided by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I am sorry that I was unable to serve on that Committee. It seems to have been a handsome combination. The dissenters did a good methodical job, and the Church of England—in the shape of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who won most of the points most of the time—did a reasonably pragmatic job.
Serving on a Committee is extremely exciting. I first sat on a Committee in 1974, when I was on the Opposition Benches in the Committee considering the Prices Bill, which was master-minded by the then hon. Member for Hitchin who subsequently became Mrs. Shirley Williams. She tabled an amendment to clause 1 of that Bill, which dealt with foods liable to subsidy. She wanted to increase the rate of subsidy and thus raise public expenditure, something to which Labour Governments are very prone. Her amendment to clause 1 related to line 1 and read "after `butter,' insert `cheese'."

In opposition at the time, we were led by my now right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). At the first sitting of the Prices Bill Committee, my then hon. Friend wanted to know whether the cheese to be subsidised would be Gorganzola from Italy, Camembert from France or Gouda from Holland. It took a little while to refine what Shirley Williams wanted to do. In fact, it was two and a half days before she provided a solution and added after "butter" insert cheese of the hard pressed Cheddar type. That is how we used to proceed in Committee and I do not think that things have changed a great deal.
I wish to refer now to the Third Reading of this Finance Bill and in particular to consider the provisions in relation to foreign earnings. They can be considered in two ways: first, in relation to individual earnings and, secondly, in respect of national earnings and benefits. With regard to national earnings, it is clear that the shipping industry plays a substantial role in the nation's earnings.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is aware that that point has been a matter of considerable interest on the fringes of the Finance Bill. He would agree that, despite the enormous decline in the tonnage of British shipping, which now is one tenth of the tonnage which existed in 1980, the industry's earnings are still substantial and amount to around £4 billion—and that is apart from the insurance-related services which benefit the City of London and the balance of payments and amount to at least another £1 billion.
In the foreign earnings section, the Government sought to address certain aspects of the shipping issue. Clause 44 eases the tax burdens on those at sea with the merchant fleet or in other capacities. I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the Government for making that significant concession. He will know that there is some anxiety in the industry that the provision may distort the pattern of employment between long-haul and short-haul vessels. However, the fact remains that the Government took a precise interest in the shipping industry by making that concession in clause 44.
Many of us are concerned that an industry which is sufficiently important to be considered by the Government in that way, and to be granted a concession where the Government thought that was justified, is still a hugely important national industry with a substantial reservoir of public support. The decline of that industry with a consequential loss of trade and prestige is causing considerable alarm on two grounds: first, because a huge national asset has been wasted through lack of nurture and, secondly, because with regard to the defence requirements, that element of shipping which is so vital when there are difficulties will not be there if—I hope that it will always be if rather than when—it is ever needed.
For that reason, my colleagues and I wanted to amend the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) moved an amendment in Committee, but it was negatived. That was bad luck and the issue was dropped—and correctly so—from our agenda today. However, the issue remains and it has already been given the importance which I suspect the Government are beginning to attach to it as a result of two developments.
The first development was that a working party was set up by the Treasury when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, comprising five Departments of State. It examined the problem of where


taxation or relief can be applied and all other problems associated with the maintenance of the British shipping capacity. Those five Departments included the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Transport, as well as the Treasury, which was clearly given the lead.
It was interesting that in yesterday's debate on new clause 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred twice to this issue. He dealt with it first in column 98 of Hansard, but more importantly in column 99 when he referred twice to ministerial consideration of the matter. Referring to flagging out, he said:
the report of a technical working party is being carefully studied. An important defence issue is being addressed by Ministers and in due course more can be said about it.
In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, my right hon. and learned Friend then said:
The matter is being considered and a statement will be made when a proper conclusion is reached. I cannot say whether that will be before the House rises but I wanted hon. Members to know that the defence issue, which is unrelated to these fiscal matters, has the serious attention of Ministers."—[Official Report, 15 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 99.]
The most important element of information that I culled from that rather slender saga was that the British shipping industry will be a sharp focus for Government attention.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I absolutely and entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary's remarks about ships being taken up from trade were not only interesting, but also important. We should like a statement from the Government on that matter, if not before we rise, soon after we return from the summer recess. Like the hon. Gentleman, I lay enormous stress on the importance of merchant shipping and merchant ship building and on the need to retain crews.

Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and his committed interest in shipping, which is a cross-party issue.
Following my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary's comments yesterday evening, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary some questions. Will he now state unequivocally that the Government recognise that there is a problem in relation to the rapid decline in tonnage and in its availability for defence purposes? Does he recognise equally that, although tonnage is an issue, our seafarers, their training, trained capacity and availability are also an issue? He will recall the difficulty during the Falklands conflict when many of the foreign-trained crews sought to be relieved of their posts and to be replaced by British seafarers and seamen who were trained and available. Happily, that was resolved, but my hon. Friend must agree that it is not simply a question of tonnage and of the acceptability of certain types of ship for certain defence needs—it is equally a matter of having trained and available seafarers who can man those ships if they are ever taken out of trade and deployed by the Ministry of Defence.
Is there now a genuine commitment to consider that issue? If so, that would be a major step forward. The solution itself does not matter so much—there are many

possible ways of dealing with this—but the fact that the issue is being seriously addressed is in itself a significant development.

Mr. John McFall: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Select Committee on Defence has also considered that point in relation to merchant shipping and that we have expressed our concern. In another place, Lord Fieldhouse, the Admiral of the Fleet, said in his maiden speech:
The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1991; Vol. 529, c. 1105.]
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should treat such comments with the seriousness that they deserve?

Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. In 1988, the Select Committee on Defence stated:
The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three key factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed and the availability of a pool of British seafarers to man them.
It concluded:
There are grounds for concern on all three counts".
That was the first point that I wanted to raise with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
Secondly, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was referring yesterday to the interdepartmental committee that has been set up to study shipping, and if that committee is to issue a report, it is important that such a report should be produced quickly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the group that is reporting? If he can confirm that—I suspect that he can—will he consider consulting the interests that are involved prior to determining the Government's final view or policy on this matter? As he knows, the General Council of British Shipping. has had several close contacts with his good self and his colleagues on this matter, but where Ministry of Defence interests are also involved, it is important that there should be discussion with the industries involved prior to the Government firming up the proposal that they will lay before the House.
Thirdly, if my hon. Friend can confirm that those are the portents, I understand that the method by which the Government decide to act must be a matter for themselves. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the allowances issue. The corporation tax relief is spread right across the board and we must all welcome the moves in the general direction of reducing taxation on industries, whatever they may be.
I seek no special tax element for the industry, but I do seek a refined and clear answer to the problem that has bedevilled both the industry and those who seek to work within it. Somehow or other, the haemorrhaging must stop. It is vital that there is a transfusion—possibly only a small one—to help to maintain the health and capacity of the industry to deliver its best both in time of peace and, sadly, in time of war.

Mr. Denzil Davies: For years, there has been consensus in the House that something must be done to arrest the decline of the British merchant fleet. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has made his points in


a debate which has shown that that consensus still lives. It is time for the Government to introduce measures to address a problem about which many of us feel strongly. Something must be done.
The Opposition can agree with some of the measures in the Finance Bill. We can agree, for example, with the removal of higher rate mortgage interest relief. We can also agree with the Government's attempts to bring coherence into the tax position of non-resident trusts. That is a difficult area. We can also agree with the taxation of benefits in kind, which is another difficult area, as some of my hon. Friends and I can remember from when we were in government.
My prime concern relates to clauses 23 to 25, which deal with corporation tax. Incidentally, however, before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker allowed the Financial Secretary to answer a few questions about economic and monetary union. Although I do not wish to pursue that now, I was grateful to the Financial Secretary for answering reasonably frankly. The Government are, however, deluding themselves if they think that they could keep control of fiscal and budgetary policy if we had a common currency and a European central bank with its bankers controlling monetary policy.
The very idea that national Governments and national Parliaments could have control over budgetary policy is wishful thinking. I hope that the Financial Secretary is right in believing that the Government would retain control, but I just cannot see it. The draft treaty on economic and monetary union has an intellectual coherence about it. Powers over monetary matters go to a European central bank. Powers over fiscal matters go, not entirely but to a considerable extent, to the Commission. However, those are matters which we can debate on other occasions.
I return to clauses 23 and 25. As I am a Back-Bench Member, I am not afraid to say that I would prefer a higher rate of corporation tax, with a greater range of allowances for plant and machinery and for manufacturing industry. That is the basis of my objection to clauses 23 and 25. In Committee on the Floor of the House we had a debate on an amendment on this matter. I was sorry to see that, after 12 years of Conservative Government, almost every Conservative Member who spoke still had little sympathy for manufacturing industry. Indeed, there was some hostility to the idea of giving manufacturing industry some assistance. The only exception was the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). He had to code his message somewhat because of the general dislike for manufacturing industry, but at least he showed his concern.

Mr. Gill: This is not a party political point. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often the greatest help that the House can give to industry is to resist the temptation to legislate as much as we do? Does he agree that a reduced flow of legislation would help British industry in many respects by enabling it to maintain a lower overhead, rather than increasing its overhead?

Mr. Davies: I agree with that. I have looked at the statutes passed by the House since 1980, virtually since the Government came to power. They get longer and more numerous as time progresses. This Finance Bill is much longer than some of the Finance Bills that the Labour Government introduced. I suppose that one of the

penalties that we have had to pay in the past 12 years for a radical right-wing Government is considerably more legislation even than previous Labour and Conservative Governments introduced. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but my point is that I should prefer to see a higher rate of corporation tax and more allowances, yes for the shipping industry, but for manufacturing industry in general.
We had a debate yesterday on a new clause moved by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) about allowances in general. Although the wording could not be aimed specifically at shipping, the new clause was aimed at the shipping industry. Again, little sympathy was shown. I do not think that there are many factories in the shopping malls and leafy groves of Putney, so the Chief Secretary showed little sympathy. He trotted out Inland Revenue fears that some North Korean shipowner would clean up on all the allowances and disappear to Lichtenstein or some other such place. That was an easy excuse to trot out from the Treasury Bench.
The rot set in and the problems started when the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) decided to reduce corporation tax from 52 to 35 per cent. and to do away with almost all the allowances—although not the writing down allowances—in respect of investment, mainly in manufacturing industry. Such allowances were an attempt to provide assistance to industries which have to buy large capital assets. The reduction in the rate of corporation tax did nothing to help those companies, but it was a great bonanza to companies that do not need large capital assets. Banks do not need large capital assets, apart from their premises. The retail industry and the service and financial industries do not need to purchase large capital assets, so they do not need that assistance. The decision of the right hon. Member for Blaby was a bonanza to them.
I should have preferred the benefits to be given to manufacturing industry. Perhaps as a by-product of that change, the right hon. Member for Blaby also increased the charge on capital gains. We have had a discussion in the Chamber about that matter already, and it was also discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, when the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) raised the point. I was surprised when the Government increased the tax on capital gains to 40 per cent. I never thought that I would see a Conservative Government increase capital gains tax to possibly the highest ever rate. I know that there are exemptions and that to some extent there is indexation. The tax on capital gains, as opposed to income gains dressed up as capital, is the highest that has ever been introduced in Britain. We now have a charge of 40 per cent. on capital gains and a top rate of tax on income gains, if I may describe it in that way, of 40 per cent.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) implied that the Labour party was wrong to propose to keep the rate of tax on capital gains lower than the top rate on income gains when we get into government. However, there always used to be a rule that one did not tax the tree at the same rate as the fruit. If a Labour Government did that, I can imagine the pompous, pedantic speeches that would be made from the Conservative Opposition Benches, the equally pompous editorials in The Times, The Independent and The Guardian and the lectures that we would be given about trees and fruit and not inflicting taxation on the tree. Adam Smith must have said something about that, too.
Yet we have not heard a whimper from anyone that the tree is to be taxed to the same extent as the fruit. Perhaps the editors of The Independent, The Times and the Financial Times were too busy enjoying the fruit of 40 per cent. taxation on their income to worry about 40 per cent. taxation on the tree. I find it strange. I remember a royal commission years ago in Canada on the taxation of income and capital. I forget its exact title. It concluded in the 1960s with the elegant expression: "A buck is a buck is a buck." One taxes a dollar as a dollar. Whether that dollar is a tree dollar or a fruit dollar, it makes no difference. That report was sat upon. It was considered to be impractical and wrong.
I find it strange that a capitalist party is prepared to tax capital at the same level as income. My right hon. and hon. Friends intend to increase the top rates of income tax when we get into government to 50 per cent., 57 per cent. or whatever it will be after the national insurance surcharge. So, following the pattern of the Government's legislation, why should not we increase capital gains tax to 57 per cent., too? The Government have conceded the argument that, subject to allowances, one taxes capital gains at the same rate as income, for which of course there are also allowances. That is an extraordinary, almost Leninist, proposition from the Conservative Government, who have operated over the years in a way which would have brought joy to the heart of Lenin.

Mr. Peter Hain: Of Stalin.

Mr. Davies: I did not like to say Stalin. I will confine it to Lenin.
I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Blaby made the changes in corporation tax out of malice towards manufacturing industry. The changes are repeated in this Finance Bill, too. However, those changes accorded with the indifference or outright hostility to manufacturing industry which, as an Opposition Member, I have witnessed in the Tory Government. The right hon. Member for Blaby reduced corporation tax because he believed in a level playing field in terms of allowances. It is a perfectly respectable view that there should be no allowances. The cost of allowances and deductions was mentioned earlier. It is a respectable view that we have no allowances, no exemptions and we reduce the rates of tax. But that is a Utopian view because life is not like that. The Finance Acts and income tax codes do not operate in that way. Governments of all persuasions have used financial legislation for purposes of social engineering.
Certainly the present Government have done that. They cannot argue for a level playing field because they have used one Finance Act after another to try to convert society—frankly, society cannot be converted by the use of Finance Bills, or taxation in general, although some politicians take the opposite view—to their own ideological beliefs.
The Financial Secretary more or less admitted that no Government can eliminate all allowances and deductions. So the priority, in corporation tax terms, should be manufacturing industry, not because we believe in dark satanic mills and regard banks as terrible places. As I endeavoured to explain yesterday, the products of dark satanic mills will buy food, whereas the products of banks will not, at the end of the day, across the exchanges, buy

anything. That is the difference in terms of national interest between manufacturing industry and all the other parts of the economy.
Unfortunately, the British establishment, whether the civil service establishment in Whitehall or the financial establishment in the City, does not care or want to know about manufacturing industry. To operate properly, manufacturing industry demands certain technical qualifications and knowledge. The British establishment does not want to acquire those skills to enable it to take an interest in and run manufacturing industry.
History, politics, philosophy and economics, cultural studies and the rest are nicer and easier occupations to follow. One can make witty speeches at the Oxford or Cambridge Unions as a result of taking those subjects. It is more difficult, on the other hand, if one takes technical subjects, and the British establishment does not want to know.
Allied to that is the fact that, as Napoleon said, the English—I should say British; I do not want to be accused of being racist—are a nation of shopkeepers. We are involved with buying and selling and cash flow, with money coming in and going out. That is the problem that Labour Members will have to face when we take the reins of government, because there will be pressures on us also not to give to manufacturing industry the priority that it needs.
That priority might mean—I mention it as part of the whole picture—putting up the rates of corporation tax on banks, financial services and stockbrokers and giving, out of that extra revenue, the sort of allowances that should be given to manufacturing industry. We will not be able to run away from that. Not only will it have to happen, but the British public will want it to happen or we shall never bridge the gap in our trade with Europe and the rest of the world. Reform of the corporation tax system will have to occur again. The Conservatives cannot do it, because their heart is not in it. We shall have to do it when we take office.

Mr. Quentin Davies: This is an excellent Finance Bill and I was honoured to be asked to serve on the Standing Committee which considered it. It was a particularly constructive and businesslike Committee this year and I am pleased that the Labour party Front Bench decided to play it in a constructive fashion. Even the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was on his best behaviour this year and took a constructive part in our proceedings. As a result, we have a piece of legislation of which we can be proud.
I shall deal with two points. The first is that, as the Financial Secretary said, it is a Finance Bill for business. That theme runs right through it and no other course could have been taken in the present economic situation. The reduction in corporation tax rates and changes in the administration of VAT all occur in that vein.
Particularly important and welcome—because it brings tremendous relief to many businesses—has been the introduction of the three-year loss carry-back provisions. Loss carry-backs and carry-forwards are more than merely an emergency measure for business in a recession. They are a sensible measure to incorporate into our taxes legislation because they reflect the true cyclical nature of all business. Business should pay tax on its profits over the cycle. Cycles for different sectors are different and the business cycle is


not of the same duration or depth each time it comes round. It is reasonable that business should now have the possibility of averaging over a period, which certain professions—authors, for instance—have enjoyed for many years.
It is a good measure and, like most good measures, one can only say of it in retrospect by way of criticism that it might have been introduced earlier. It is an imaginative move forward and I hope that it will be a permanent feature of our taxes Acts. As I pointed out in Committee, however, it is regrettable that the possibility of carrying back losses for three years has been confined by the terms of the Bill to incorporated businesses. Persons trading as principals, or unincorporated businesses in general, will not benefit from that excellent provision.
I cannot see any reason, in equity or in economics, for discriminating against persons trading as principals and people running unincorporated businesses. The reverse should be the case, since if they are unincorporated, they are bearing the full risks of the business. The logical converse is that their customers, creditors, employers and stakeholders generally are better protected—therefore, society is better protected—by virtue of the greater risks that they carry. I hope that the Government will think further along that promising line and extend the concession to unincorporated businesses.
In that sense, I put a parliamentary question recently to the Financial Secretary about the cost of extending the concession to all businesses. We have heard this afternoon that the cost for incorporated businesses will be about £250 million in a full year. I gather from the written answer that I received that the cost of extending it to all businesses would be about 10 per cent. of that figure, so there appears to be little reason on revenue grounds to resist such a sensible and desirable move.
My second point is about fiscal harmonisation in the Community, to which the Financial Secretary referred and about which we had an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman who shares my surname, the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Compulsory fiscal harmonisation—agreement within the context of a new treaty or otherwise—to place legislative restraints on the spending programmes of individual member states seems neither necessary nor desirable. As it is not necessary, it should not— under the principle of subsidiarity, which I hope will also be included in any treaty—be desirable either.
It is not necessary because the ability of any Government to spend (this has been true of all Governments at all times) is a function of two simple variables—the ability of that Government to tax and to borrow. If we go forward, as I trust we shall, to monetary union and a single currency, with a single market representing an integrated market in which there are no capital controls or limitations on the free movement of labour, the ability of Governments to tax in practice will be constrained within a reasonable margin. If one member state taxes individuals or businesses disproportionately, those individuals or businesses will migrate. People may not migrate for 5 per cent. but they will migrate for 20 per cent. One never knows exactly where the margin lies, but Governments must be wary about overstepping it.
Therefore, in practice there will be constraint on individual member state's powers to tax, but if we have a single currency there will also be a natural constraint on individual member state's ability to borrow. By definition, they will no longer be in a position to monetise their

deficits—a game that so many member states of the European Community and other countries have been playing for far too long, to the detriment of the interests of their populations. If we have a single currency, they will have to borrow in a single currency that they do not control. The markets will be well aware of that and of the fact that those countries will have to pay back any borrowings in real value. If a Government overborrow and their ability to pay back in that real value becomes dubious, the price of their bonds or other instruments on the market will immediately be marked down, the yield will increase and the interest rate at which that Government can borrow in future will become correspondingly greater. Again, a natural constraint will choke off individual member state's possibilities to borrow unduly.

Mr. Favell: As always, I have listened to my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. If he has his way with regard to a single currency, will the Budget process through which we have just gone still be necessary?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not paid strict attention to my remarks. I said that, within a prospective monetary union and in the context of a single currency, it will be neither necessary nor desirable to impose any legislative or constitutional constraints on the ability of member states to conduct their budgets as they see fit. I said that it will not be necessary because there will be natural market constraints on Governments' ability to tax or borrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that if it is not necessary to impose constraints on Governments within the Community, it is undesirable that such constraints be imposed. That is the principle of subsidiarity, which is not merely a theological device that has evolved within the Community but should be a principle of the workings of any democracy. Governments should not intervene and liberty should not be constrained more than is necessary to conserve a society's minimum collective purposes.
I think that my point has been effectively made and I am pleased to have had the opportunity, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), to emphasise certain aspects of it. European Community member states should agree, before we reach economic and monetary union, that it is desirable to enforce some fiscal discipline on ourselves. In practice, that would not change the fiscal stance of the British Government because we have set an exceedingly fine example in the past 12 years. We have run consistent fiscal surpluses throughout the boom. Naturally, through the automatic working of the stabilisers in a recession we find ourselves with a fiscal deficit. However, it is a modest one—not merely by international standards but by previous standards in this country under a Labour Government. If we preach the values of fiscal probity and rigour, it is essentially to ensure that other EC member states do not, through irresponsible fiscal policies, destabilise the process of bringing about more convergence. I foresee no constraint on us in that context.
A red herring often pressed on us by our colleagues in the Community is the suggestion that a new treaty should provide for specific rules as to the fiscal policies to be adopted by member states. I hope that I have shown that that is neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed, I believe that it is exceedingly undesirable.

Mr. James Wallace: The past two speeches have been thoughtful contributions to the debate, not least with regard to the detailed items relating to taxation. They underline the fact that the Finance Bill has two functions. The first relates to the Government's broad economic policy, which is often expressed through measures in the Finance Bill, and the second is the annual review of the different measures required to improve the taxation system, which is often not controversial but merely concerns matters of detail.
Could not we order our procedure differently? The Opposition try to do as good a job as possible to examine the minutiae of the proposals. However, in cases such as the separate taxation of women it might benefit the House, and, one hopes, the country, if in the period leading up to the Budget—perhaps from October to the beginning of the new year—the Government were to introduce the proposals on the taxation measures that they hope to incorporate in the Budget. They could then be discussed in advance and wider consultation could be carried out. Thoughtful contributions, such as that put forward by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the nature of corporation tax, could then be made more deliberatively. In that way we could try to improve the process of government without necessarily taking anything away from the cut and thrust and the general drift of the Government's economic policy.
I regret that, although we are debating the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, neither the end of the recession nor even the first signs of an upturn in the economy seem any closer than they were when the Budget was delivered in March or when the Finance Bill received its Second Reading at the end of April. The Financial Secretary appeared on "TV-am" recently and suggested that the economy may show signs of an upturn in December. I accept that that is the second half of the year—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell the House when he expects an upturn in the economy to start to show.

Mr. Maude: I knew of nothing and have seen nothing that is at odds with our forecast at the time of the Budget that the upturn would start in the second half of the year. I was merely pointing out, principally for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who seemed unclear about it, that the second half of the year runs from July to December.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful for that clarification. I share the Financial Secretary's view that there seemed to be a lack of recognition from the Labour Front Bench about how long the second half of the year lasted. However, the Financial Secretary has not said any more about when the Government expect signs of the upturn to be obvious within the second half of the year.

Dr. Marek: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be a little cautious about what the Financial Secretary said, because there will be confusion between what may be a slight recovery from the recession and what will no doubt be a pre-Christmas boom.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that Opposition Members will be quick to spot the difference and bring it to the attention of a wary electorate. I suspect that any boom may not be

a pre-Christmas boom but a pre-November boom, if we are to believe the reports in The Independent earlier this week.
The great fear must be that the recession is so deep that even an upturn in the economy will not mitigate some of the damaging effects that have already been mentioned, including the number of companies that have gone into liquidation and the increasing unemployment rate. The unemployment figures for June will be announced later this week, and the great fear must be that the trend that we have seen during recent months will continue and unemployment will rise above 2·5 million. We have the fastest growing unemployment rate in Europe and unless measures are taken to curb that increase, there could be 3 million unemployed by the turn of the year.
When considering those figures, one might look for a series of measures designed to curb, or at least tackle, the increase in unemployment, but the Finance Bill offers little scope for that. The Financial Secretary knows that he cannot intervene in my speech to ask about the minimum wage, because the Liberal Democrats share the Government's analysis that a statutory minimum wage would lead to job losses.
There is consensus on both sides of the House, barring Ministers perhaps, that one of the most necessary responses to an increase in unemployment is the need to invest more in training. The Finance Bill contains clause 32 which, I do not dispute, gives some welcome relief for vocational training, but the estimated cost of £40 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required.
Since the Budget, there has been some success in reducing the inflation rate, but it was disappointing that the June figure showed no change on the May figure. Indeed, the underlying rate of inflation—which was 6·9 per cent. in June—showed an increase in the underlying rate for May. Therefore, even judged by the Government's own yardstick of the underlying figure of inflation—which last year, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to be the favoured figure—signs show the reverse of what the Government would wish for.
Many businesses face problems because interest rates are still relatively high. That put particular pressures on small businesses, a large number of which, regrettably, will not be around to take advantage of lower interest rates, if and when they come.
The Financial Secretary said that this was intended to be a Budget for business. We welcome some of the measures for small businesses, such as the improvements in bad debt relief on value added tax and the increase of the VAT threshold. I certainly accept that the Budget contains measures that are to be welcomed by the business community. However, when I asked the Financial Secretary how he justified the increased burden on the business community of the 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate, he sought to give the impression that a degree of inevitability was involved. He accepted that the inflation rate, at 10·9 per cent., was the highest by which the Government could increase the uniform business rate. He seemed to think that businesses were, in some respects, welcoming what the Government had done. While 10·9 per cent. might be better than the business community might have feared under some local authorities—that issue is open to widespread debate—representations made to me and I am sure to many hon. Members show that the 10·9 per cent increase in uniform business rate is not welcomed by the business community. That was


the highest level by which the Government could increase that rate. They knew that the increase was due to take place on 1 April. If they had had any confidence in their projection for the inflation rate, they should have known that the increase would be substantially in excess of the inflation rate in April, which it was. The uniform business rate increase was a burden on business and continues to be so. That must be set on the scales against such reliefs as the Finance Bill brings to the business community.
We welcome the fact that the Government decided to restrict mortgage tax relief to the basic rate, which the Liberal Democrats had advocated for some time. That measure will remove a hardy annual from Finance Bill debates. We also welcome extending employee share schemes and profit-related pay, and national insurance contributions on company cars.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is not present, so perhaps I can whisper my following suggestion quietly before he arrives, so that he is not tempted to make another speech. It is regrettable that the Government have sought, yet again, to introduce retrospective and double taxation in relation to building societies in clause 52.
The principal political measure in the Budget was the increase of 2·5 per cent. in VAT to try to get the Government out of the difficulties that the poll tax had created. On Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that that was a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. He spoke as though fate had conspired to produce circumstances in which the Government were driven, against their will, to increase VAT by 2·5 per cent., with all the resultant consequences for the cost of living. However, the circumstances were not acts of fate, but the acts of the Government, who put the poll tax on the statute book. They recognised the immense difficulties that they found themselves in as a result, and had to take desperate measures to try to get themselves off that hook.
The 2·5 per cent. increase will not be forgotten. I have since had my poll tax bill from Orkney Islands council—it is all of £2 as a result of the £140 rebate. However, it is easy to ignore the fact that we have a further £55 water charge, for which those least able to pay do not receive a rebate. There is less scope for local authorities to exercise their own discretion. As the convenor of Shetland Islands council said, "How the hell do you exercise political discretion on 93p for the poll tax?" One may well repeat that question.
It has been reported recently that the £140 reduction in poll tax will not be passed on in respect of those people who do not pay the tax. That seems to be a further burden on those who pay the tax. I think that it was expected that if we had to pay the extra 2·5 per cent. VAT, there would be £140 for every poll tax payer. It seems that the Government are making things worse for those who honestly pay the poll tax, by not passing on the extra money. Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury confirm that?
Although the Finance Bill is good in parts and undertakes some of the measures that the Liberal Democrats have advocated for a number of years, it has two fundamental flaws. First, it imposes an additional VAT tax to try to get the Government off the hook of their own creation. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be the first to admit that the Liberal Democrats had the guts to put their votes where their voices were and vote against the increase. Secondly, the Finance Bill fails miserably to address the fundamental

economic problems facing this country, where we have a recession with no light at the end of the tunnel and unemployment set to increase beyond 2·25 million. The Finance Bill offers no hope to those afflicted by the recession and unemployment.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Third Reading debate of the Finance Bill is always good natured. I am sure that the House is grateful to those who have worked hard and long to bring the Bill to our attention.
The hallmarks of the Conservative Government since 1979 have been, among other factors, that we have had but one Budget in each of those years. That is of inestimable assistance to people who run businesses and have budgets to meet, and is a far cry from those days when there were two or more Budgets a year under a Labour Administration.
The Government have sought to establish sound money, and risk unpopularity as a result. They have repaid debt and have a record of both abolishing and reducing taxes. All these things are entirely desirable and beneficial, and are in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Labour Administration and to what we know would happen if the Labour party were ever to form another Administration. A few moments ago, we heard the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) advocating an increase in corporation tax.
In an intervention, I said that our tax regime means that we have no fewer than 88 reliefs and allowances against the six main Inland Revenue taxes, and that these cost the Exchequer £86·7 billion in 1990–91 while those six taxes raised £82·9 billion. In other words, they raised £4 billion less than the reliefs and allowances.
In every society, one has spendthrifts, savers, speculators, the cautious, the rash, the honest, the dishonest. There is a great hazard in treating everybody alike because it is not only illogical but unrealistic. Having so many reliefs and allowances against our taxes distorts the natural and legitimate spending decisions that individuals make. We bribe taxpayers with their own money to make decisions that reflect the priorities of the politicians. We do not have a neutral tax regime.
There are essentially four choices for disposal of after-tax income. An individual may choose to put his money into bricks and mortar, to buy a pension, to save or to spend. The incentives to invest in bricks and mortar are mortgage interest relief, capital gains tax relief, and the knowledge that bricks and mortar have an unparalleled track record of being a good investment, quite apart from the utilitarian nature of the investment. All these meant that such a disposal became a priority for many people, causing the economy to overheat.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that we should do away with mortgage tax relief?

Mr. Gill: I am advocating that the Treasury should have a long hard look at all the reliefs and allowances so that we can get nearer to a neutral tax regime. That would mean that individuals making spending decisions would not be faced with incentives for one form of disposition of income as against another. Whether we choose to spend or save, to invest in stocks or shares or in bricks and mortar, there should be no tax advantage to influence our decision.
Pensions also have a tax advantage. That gives our financial institutions an enormous amount of power, and has been instrumental in the demise of the individual shareholder. Many hon. Members may care to speculate this week about the effect of that on various goings-on in the City. Getting rid of the individual shareholder has led to massive block voting power in the hands of institutions, with the result that some of the checks and balances that would previously have existed at shareholders' meetings no longer occur because there is not the raft of private shareholders that we previously had.
Millions of people will today spend their day working for insurance companies or building societies. That brings me to my next topic—savings. Savings are not as popular as spending. Savings out of earnings are generally taxed twice and savers are shy about saving because of the effects of inflation. The decision to spend is also affected by inflation. We live in a materialistic age where people want to spend. That is not to deny the fact that the modern economy depends on consumption.
Before the increase of VAT to 17·5 per cent. in the Budget, taxes on production—that is, broadly speaking, pay-as-you-earn, national insurance, business rates and corporation tax—accounted for 70 per cent. of the Inland Revenue's income. Taxes on consumption—bearing in mind that we live in an age that is trying to conserve natural resources and is conscious of the finite extent of those resources—brought in only 30 per cent. of revenue income. Therefore, I invite my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to look again at whether we have got right the balance between those taxes that impinge on production, which is so important to the economy, and those which impinge on consumption.
We need fewer and lower taxes, but above all we need a neutral tax regime such as that which I have set out. We have to balance spending decisions between spending on consumables or saving, and to balance spending on consumption and on production. We must never forget that individual spending decisions are preferable to Government decisions, and that manufacturing industry, contrary to what many people are telling us today, is without a shadow of doubt the engine of our economy. It is important to our economy, because it creates wealth.
I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate Ministers on introducing a Budget which did its best to reflect the needs of all sections of society. My plea is that we do all that we can in future Budgets to look after the wealth-creating sector and to make sure that spending decisions remain with the individual rather than drifting to the centre.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Like the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), I was not a member of this cosy club. I am not sure that the Committee examining the Finance Bill should be as cosy as has been made out. I have heard talk about gentlemanly actions and about how civil and good natured people were. This Finance Bill has done devastating things to people and should be opposed vigorously. I am sure that it was in Committee, and I am sure that its proceedings were not as cosy as has been suggested by Conservative Members.
Hon. Members will not be surprised when I mention one shambles in the Finance Bill—which is strewn with shambolic actions by the Government—the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which I referred to earlier. In the early hours of this morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that he thought that that was the first time that the foundation had been discussed. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows only too well that that is not the case. I raised the subject in the Budget debate on 20 March, in the debate an Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 30 April, and in an Adjournment debate on 23 May.
I am sure that many hon. Members have noticed that the Budget had two facets—one of panic and one of fear. That has continued throughout the proceedings on the Finance Bill. The way in which the Government have set about cobbling together proposals proves that Ministers have been struck down by another affliction—financial illiteracy.
Watching a variety of Ministers make contradictory claims about the amount of money that will be provided by the foundation has been a little like watching a magician's card trick. Ministers have been intent on plucking figures out of the air, and have refused to tell even their own colleagues how the last figure was arrived at. Very often, the figures have been doubled by the next Minister who has spoken. That might be an acceptable way in which to treat Tory Members, but it is no way to treat the millions of sports men and women and the millions of people who are involved in the arts in Britain.
The chief culprit for making suspect claims is our old friend the Minister for Sport. On 23 April at a press conference in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre he said that the foundation would generate £75 million per year. When I asked him to justify that, he said in a parliamentary written answer on 29 April that that sum would be produced from increased pools betting take-up. I am sure that the Financial Secretary viewed that claim with astonishment because, to be fair, the Treasury has always said that the foundation will produce £60 million. That claim was repeated by a Minister in the early hours of this morning. When I pointed out the Minister for Sport's claim to the Financial Secretary during the debate on the Finance Bill on 30 April he refuted my remarks and said that the Minister for Sport would be surprised. So surprised was he that he repeated the claim on 23 May. It is extraordinary that Ministers still cannot agree on a common figure for the resources that will be generated for the foundation by the Bill.
However, if the Financial Secretary thinks that the Minister for Sport has made extraordinary claims, he should consider the figures given in The Guardian on 21 June by the Minister for the Arts. He said that the foundation will provide £1 million a week to sport and £500,000 a week to the arts. The Financial Secretary, with his recently acquired knowledge of financial statistics, might confirm that 52 times £1·5 million is not £60 million, nor £75 million, but £78 million. The Minister should advise his colleagues to read the figures contained in a parliamentary written answer to me on 12 July, at column 527, from the Minister of State, Treasury, who said that in order to provide funds to the foundation of £75 million, the pools betting turnover would need to increase from £766,000 to £1 billion—an increase of 30·5 per cent. in one year. The Minister's answer also shows that pools betting duty increased by only 28 per cent. during the past four


years and has never increased by more than 8·9 per cent. in any one year in the past decade, which all goes to show that Ministers do not have a clue what will be provided by the foundation.
I do not have time to develop these points, because others wish to speak. Therefore, I do not wish to say more than that the foundation has been a shambles from the beginning. I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies he will come clean. At least he is listening to my remarks tonight; he usually gets them second hand from the Minister of State and, as I have said before, I do not think that he can read her handwriting. Is the figure £60 million, £75 million or £78 million? Who will the trustees be? Will the Minister for the Arts have an observer on the foundation? Yesterday I was told that he would not, but in the early hours of the morning I was told that he would. Throughout, the Government have been in a mess over the foundation and we all know why.
The foundation was concocted a few days before the Budget in order to stop a national lottery coming on the scene and, as a result, the Government have run into trouble. Why do not the Government put up their hands and admit that they are in a mess and say that they will look again at the whole question of how coherently to fund sport and the arts in Britain? They should not be pushed along this road by a pressure group which has bounced them into the scheme. Privately they admit that they have been bounced into it. They should come clean and say so, so that we can have a meaningful debate about how to fund these important areas of our life.

Mr. Ian Bruce: This is an excellent Finance Bill. I well understand why Mr. Speaker was unable to select the two amendments that I tabled to clause 30 dealing with mobile phones, a subject which was discussed at great length in Committee. We should remember that we tax simply to raise revenue and, as a reforming Conservative Government, to level playing fields for the raising of revenue.
The tax on mobile phones is a tax too far and a rather unfortunate joke within the Budget speech which has backfired because it does not do what it was intended to do—raise revenue and maintain a level playing field. The £200 basic charge, which at the standard rate would be a £50 tax on an individual, or £80 at the higher rate—under a Labour Government it would be at least £100 at the higher rate—is a tax on enterprise which we should not be imposing. It could well reduce tax revenue, because I understand that there has been a reduction in the number of people ordering such phones and that many are now passing them back to their employers.
Technically, the private use of any business phone is taxable, but practically that does not occur. Anyone who has a phone on his desk in an office uses it for a certain number of private calls. The Government say that a mobile phone is different because the user is out of the office and cannot be supervised so closely. That is nonsense because a single phone, dedicated to an individual, locked up in a person's car can be used only by that person. With a switchboard with multiple extensions one cannot work out who is using a particular phone. That nonsense is further exacerbated because in the clause,

which extends to two pages, the Government have decided to exclude the telepoint phone which allows calls to be made outside the office but not received.
We are attempting to stifle enterprise. People who are willing to be available 24 hours a day seven days a week and do not want to spend a lot of time working out which are private calls and which are not will be taxed. Moreover, it is ridiculous that the person who is using the phone as a perk, making many free calls without being charged the tax, will be getting away with murder by having a small charge.
Clause 30 will not raise any additional tax revenue. In practice, we will find that is does not do what it is supposed to do. The playing field is being tilted away from high technology, the mobile phone and all the developments of the next decade in mobile telephony, and that is a wrongheaded move. I hope that the Minister will look at that again.
Finally, non-incorporated businesses should have a carry-back for tax. There is no justification for a corner newsagent not being able to reclaim his tax while W. H. Smith, if it has a run of bad years, can do so. Those are two blots on an excellent Bill and I hope that they will be taken on board in future Bills.

Mr. Peter Hain: This has been my first experience of the Finance Bill. Much to the amazement of some of my more experienced colleagues, I volunteered to serve on the Committee. I was struck by the Government's barefaced cheek in bringing forward a Bill of such staggering irrelevance and complacency given the general economic situation. It is a Bill of bits and bobs with no strategy. When it started off, the revenue heart of the Bill was the VAT increase—a panic measure. It was born not out of any desire to achieve an optimal level of VAT, but out of the desire to bail the Government out of the mess that they found themselves in on the poll tax. As a result, the poor have been hit the hardest and the noose has been further tightened around the necks of small businesses which have been suffering so badly during the past 10 years.
Similarly, the tax changes that have been introduced could have addressed the poverty trap problem which continues to inflict great damage on many of my constituents. Some of them supplement their retirement pensions with tiny private pensions from their life's work down the mines. A pension increase is given to them with one hand, but tax is taken from them with the other. The Government could have addressed that anomaly, but they did not do so. The Budget is full of missed opportunities.
Clause 27 sets the level at which tax relief can be claimed on mortgages. That welcome change is one which Labour has advocated for many years. But instead of switching that money to providing additional relief to hard-pressed first-time buyers—many of whom cannot afford to buy a home even in today's depressed property market—the Government directed it at making extra provision for higher rate tax payers. Therefore, those mortgage payers who would have lost out under the change in the level of relief saw it equalised under the tax change. They are the same group of people who have benefited dramatically over the years from the Government's tax cuts for the rich.
The Government also failed to address the crisis in training that they have perpetuated and intensified. Clause 32 of the Finance Bill will have little effect on west Wales, where the number of training weeks has been cut by 21 per cent., or by 43,200 places, over the past year.
I refer to the many other business measures, such as the capital relief given to companies engaged in the construction of toll roads, without any thought to a clear strategy. In Committee, I asked the Financial Secretary how much money that measure will cost the Exchequer, but he did not know. There is a need in my constituency to construct the missing link in the A465, but the Government cannot entertain that scheme because they are giving a little tax relief here and there, without even knowing how much it will cost.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) rightly referred to the gimmick tax on mobile phone usage. That petty measure will hit small businesses the hardest, but it will generate hardly any additional revenue, if any at all. In May, a month after the Chancellor's announcement, there was the first fall in the United Kingdom cellular phone sector, of 460 subscribers, after a six-year period of uninterrupted growth. That proposal is technologically illiterate and petty in tax terms.
The Finance Bill presents a package of irrelevant measures while the economy continues to go down the plug hole. Welsh businesses are closing at the alarming rate of seven every working day. In the first half of 1991, a total of 880 businesses in Wales went under—an increase of 77·1 per cent. over last year.
Today, Lord King of British Airways announced a further loss of 1,000 to 2,000 direct jobs as a consequence of British Airways being restricted to its core businesses. The Secretary of State for Transport has behaved with monumental incompetence, echoing again the Government's failure to address the real needs of industry and the economy. That is particularly true of the south Wales economy, which, despite the public relations noises made by the Secretary of State for Wales, has suffered one shock after another.
The Bill's failure to address the central issues of our society and economy is evidenced by the continuing and relentless rise in unemployment, with the number of jobless in Wales reaching 100,000 for the first time in many years. Industry is at its wit's end. It views the Government with absolute contempt because of their failure to address the deep-seated problems of the British economy. The Bill reflects the Government's incompetence. While Government Ministers sit in their ivory towers devising tiny clauses for the Finance Bill, the economy is falling down around their ears.

Dr. John Marek: It is nice to have an open-ended debate, but, although we can continue this Third Reading of the Finance Bill as long as we like, the Chairman of Ways and Means has put down private business for 7 o'clock, so I will do my best to make sure that the debate can finish by then.
I particularly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who summed up the Opposition's attitude to the Bill, which tinkers with, but does nothing for, the economy, which only goes from bad

to worse. Telling points were made also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), in respect of capital investment, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who spoke about funding of sports and the arts.
I share the view expressed by some hon. Members that the Finance Bill should be attacked in Committee in a co-operative way, but also in a way that reveals to the public what is wrong with its provisions. Very often, those two objectives cannot be met. The Bill contains many technical clauses, but also several—such as that which increases value added tax from 15 to 17·5 per cent.—whose impact can immediately be understood by everyone. There may be an argument for reassessing the way in which the House considers future Finance Bills, so that the Opposition of the day could have their objections carefully considered by the Government and their advisers, while the technicalities were allowed to progress with cross-party co-operation. That would allow important decisions affecting the public to be fought in the traditional way, across the Floor of the House—and I would not dare to suggest from this Dispatch Box any improvements to that system.
The Financial Secretary said that this is a Budget for business, and called in aid the lowering of corporation tax and the availability of VAT relief on bad debts after one year instead of two. There is not much for business in those two measures. They will help a little—one must not be churlish—but they are incapable of bringing much improvement to the economy and to industry as a whole.
The Government's growth record is abysmal. From 1979 to 1991, Britain's economy grew by only 1·5 per cent., despite the benefit of £100 billion of North sea oil. The Government are fond of comparing their performance with that of past Labour Administrations. From 1974 to 1979, the economy grew by 2 per cent., and under the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970, Britain enjoyed an average growth rate of 2·8 per cent. The Government's record of growth and of helping industry is not good—and I am being very moderate in that choice of words. Between 1979 and 1991, the United Kingdom was sixth from the bottom of the growth league among the 24 OECD countries.
From the time of the industrial revolution until 1982, we had a surplus in manufacturing trade. In 1982 we went into the red, and have remained in the red ever since. Manufacturing output has hardly grown since 1979, when the present Administration took office. Between then and 1991, it grew less than in any other OECD country.
Although welcome, the limited alleviation of the problems of corporation tax and bad debts will do nothing to lift us from the abyss that we have had to endure under the present Government. They have taken us from one bad recession, in 1980–81, through an unsustainable consumer boom and into another bad recession in 1990–91. Those were the two worst recessions since the great recession of the 1930s. The Bill does not address the problems of our economy; it merely increases indirect taxation.
The VAT increase—from 15 to 17·5 per cent.—was not introduced for any noble reason, such as a desire to make trains and buses run on time, to improve the roads or to reduce environmental pollution. As we heard from the Financial Secretary's own lips this afternoon, the Government simply wanted to reduce poll tax payments. The poll tax problem was entirely of the Government's making. They can provide no excuse: they brought the


problem on themselves by insisting on the original charges and, in an attempt to escape the consequences, they have now inflicted the VAT increase on everyone in the country.
Under the present Administration, people have had to bear higher rates of taxation than I can remember. The Financial Secretary has conveniently forgotten that, under the last Labour Government, VAT was running at 8 per cent. It rose to 15 per cent. very soon after the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) took office in 1979, despite earlier denials that any such increase would take place.
The Financial Secretary has also forgotten that national insurance contributions rose by some 2·5 per cent. at that time. It was news to him this afternoon—his civil servants showed him the relevant table—that taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, rose by quite a bit in 1979. Later, it fell, but it has since risen again. The Financial Secretary did not say that initially, but I give him credit for getting it right in the end. Having shot up in 1979, taxation, as a proportion of GDP, has remained 3 or 4 per cent. higher than it was under Labour in the 1970s.
There is no prospect of a fall in that high percentage rate; certainly the Bill will do nothing to bring it down. The only solution available to the British people is to get rid of the Government at the next general election—and, as the opinion polls show, that is exactly what will happen when the Government finally muster enough nerve to go to the country and test their policies before the public. Meanwhile, they have produced a Finance Bill which merely tinkers with an economy that is in dire need of repair.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) ended his speech on a brave and defiant note, and I do not begrudge him that—he is entitled to his little show of defiance in the face of opinion polls which are crumbling before his very eyes. Nevertheless, I set little store by those polls, for there is only one poll that matters—the one in which the British people give their verdict, and I am prepared to abide by that verdict as I am confident that it will be in our favour.
This has been a useful and, by and large, temperate and moderate debate. Our Finance Bill debates express very powerfully what the House of Commons is about. They illustrate its role in scrutinising public expenditure and legislating for the levying of taxation. We should take that role seriously, and I believe that we have done so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) mentioned the problems of the merchant shipping fleet, and suggested steps that the Government might take. As he probably knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to those problems briefly in yesterday's debate. My hon. Friend requested me to state unequivocally that the decline in tonnage was a problem. He also said—and I cannot entirely accept this—that it did not much matter what the solution was. In my view, it does matter. We must not simply say, "Here is a problem—something must be done; this is something—let us do it." We must ensure that any solution that we produce is a real solution to a real problem.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the matter very seriously. We fully recognise the contribution made by our merchant shipping fleet in times of conflict. We and our NATO partners keep the position

under regular review and—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said yesterday—we are currently engaged in an up-to-date study of our shipping requirements and the options for meeting them. As my hon. Friend seemed to accept, this is a complex subject. It is far from simple either to divine those requirements or to decide how they can best be affordably met.
We are confident that the taxation route is not the right one, and that has, I believe, been generally accepted by the House. I assure hon. Members, however, that we shall not hesitate to act—and, if necessary, to spend—if we consider that such action is justified by our defence requirements.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my hon. Friend consult the industry as the results of the working party's review become known?

Mr. Maude: We have remained in close touch with the shipping industry, which has been at pains to keep in touch not only with us but with a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I make no complaint about that; it is right that we should understand the problems.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) talked about the sports and arts trust, and urged me to come clean. Let me reassure him, too. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary came clean yesterday at about 1.30 in the morning, and I think that when the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard he will find his points well met.
This is a good Finance Bill and I have no difficulty in commending it wholeheartedly to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 219.

Division Number 213]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bright, Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Allason, Rupert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Cartwright, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Benyon, W.
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Farr, Sir John
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Sir Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith





Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Thorne, Neil


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, Sir Teddy





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Crowther, Stan


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Beckett, Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benton, Joseph
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Edwards, Huw


Buckley, George J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fearn, Ronald


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carr, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Flannery, Martin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Flynn, Paul


Clay, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael






Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Nellist, Dave


Gould, Bryan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, William


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Hain, Peter
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Prescott, John


Henderson, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hinchliffe, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rooker, Jeff


Hoyle, Doug
Rooney, Terence


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Johnston, Sir Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Straw, Jack


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McCartney, Ian
Walley, Joan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McLeish, Henry
Wigley, Dafydd


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marek, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wray, Jimmy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Meacher, Michael



Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The works set out in the Bill are designed to add capacity and to improve the flexibility of the rail system in the years following the opening of the channel tunnel. They represent a small but important part of the rolling programme of investment being undertaken by British Rail.
The year 1993 offers unprecedented opportunities: the single European market will be in operation and the channel tunnel will be ready to open. The development of the nation's infrastructure to maximise business potential is of vital importance. The final section of the M20 is now in place and it will link the tunnel with Britain's motorway network. British Rail is investing more than £1,500 million in new high-speed trains, in a new international station at Waterloo and in renewed infrastructure to meet the new needs. Many other changes are necessary, some large and some small. The works outlined in the Bill represent, for the most part, the latter type. Each item is in itself a modest measure but is vital to the infrastructure of the national rail system.
In brief, the Bill would connect the proposed Ashford international station with the existing channel tunnel route and provide for three new freight loops in Kent; for a railway chord link in north London and for improvements to the layout at Bickley junction in south-east London. Together, those works represent an important element of the investment programme in the rail network designed to carry the predicted level of passenger and freight traffic in the years before the opening of the proposed high-speed rail link at the end of the century.
However, it is worth noting that, although new powers are needed for the works proposed in the Bill, those works represent only a small part of the overall programme of works which the board has undertaken in contemplation of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, most of which are being carried out under existing powers.
Works Nos. 1A and 1B of the Bill provide for the construction of a railway connection to the proposed international station at Ashford which is excellently located, providing easy access from Kent and Sussex to mainland Europe without a journey into London. The introduction of the Networker express for Kent coast services and the proposed electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings will ensure continuing improvements to the strategic benefits which the station will provide.

Mr. Roger Moate: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend, who is speaking on behalf of British Rail on this occasion, mention the introduction of the Networker express service. I agree that it is a matter of tremendous importance, but has he been informed of when British Rail might make even an application to the Minister for the investment authority to go ahead with the programme? I should be very interested to know.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend raises an important point and I shall seek clarification if I have the opportunity to reply later. However, I expected that it was certainly to be within the next three or four years.
The proposals currently before the Secretary of State have received outline planning permission and have been commended by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Work No. 2 in the Bill, the West Hampstead chord, will provide a 650 m line connecting the midland main line with the west coast main line. That will allow the proposed King's Cross low-level station to have direct access to the west midlands and the north-west on its completion, with or without the new rail link from the tunnel into central London.
Work No. 6 provides for an extra link between two existing railways at Bickley junction in the London borough of Bromley to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate international traffic and existing domestic train services. Works Nos. 3, 4 and 5 look to the construction of three loops in Kent at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford. The purpose of the loops, which are approximately 900 m in length, is to allow slower moving freight trains to be bypassed by current Network SouthEast and proposed international passenger services. Their sites have been chosen to avoid points of conflict between passenger and freight timetables. It is vital that the loops are constructed if British Rail is to maximise the opportunity for moving freight by rail with no disadvantage to existing Network SouthEast customers.
I am aware that the issue of how freight should be carried through Kent is of concern to many hon. Members from that beautiful county. The building of the channel tunnel and the single European market will lead initially to a growth in freight equivalent to about 400,000 lorry movements a year. British Rail proposes the introduction of up to 27 channel tunnel freight services a day each way. Those trains will be able to take the equivalent of up to 1,500 lorry loads each day off the already heavily congested roads of Kent.
The growth of freight traffic raises the issue of noise. That main environmental concern is being addressed by British Rail. Quieter welded track, new train and wagon design and the use of new electric rather than diesel locomotives will make a major contribution to noise reduction for residents living close to the railway. Many people in the south-east are accustomed to diesel locomotives hauling slow and heavy traffic, whereas the new freight train, like the new international passenger train, will be a different breed. I am sure that the people of Kent will welcome the change.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill spoke of the need to address the issue of "major and relatively sudden" intensification of services on existing lines. The Bill will not in itself cause a major intensification of services, but follows naturally from the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 through which the House approved the principle of developing international freight and passenger rail services. British Rail is convinced that the net environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail freight business will be overwhelmingly positive. As I said, it will carry the equivalent of 400,000 lorry movements in Kent each year.
Kent county council has argued that the increase in traffic due to the channel tunnel is a unique case, but that is not so. Examples from the recent past include the introduction of the hourly night service on the Gatwick express, the introduction of channel tunnel construction

material trains and coal traffic to the Aire valley power stations. British Rail has said that it is willing to discuss with Kent county council proposals for local measures of mitigation. Since the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, the chairman of British Rail and the leader of Kent county council have been in touch and they are agreed on the need to come up with some workable solutions.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: My hon. Friend mentioned the activity of trains carrying freight for the channel tunnel construction. I bring to my hon. Friend's notice the fact that constituents are already greatly disturbed by that traffic in a way in which they were not disturbed before.

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend raised the question of comparing those trains with the trains that are proposed to carry freight in the future. They will vary considerably. The point was not whether the noise that they make is disturbing. The question was whether such noise had existed before. Kent county council claims that the new network will be the first occasion on which such noise will occur. I was attempting to point out that that was not the case.
I remind the House that the works in the Bill are limited in scope, but important. As the House of Lords Select Committee noted:
without the works in the Bill, British Rail would be compelled to find other means of operating services to the Channel Tunnel, although doubtless at some cost to operational efficiency.
The Committee said that it was the responsibility of British Rail to maximise the potential benefit of the tunnel and the single European market for rail traffic and that it must seek to do so without prejudicing its many customers in Kent and elsewhere.
With the permission of the House, I shall endeavour to answer further questions later. I have explained the purpose of the Bill and why I commend it to the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I want to speak both generally and particularly from a Scottish and northern point of view. I speak with some trepidation because I am aware that there may be more local concerns into which I have no intention of intruding. When I look at a measure that includes the creation of passing loops at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford in Kent, I fear that I may step into a hornets' nest and that there may be matters of intense local concern.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Whatever the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions, many of us welcome enormously the fact that he is prepared to speak this evening. One of the great problems in addressing the works needed to cope with the channel tunnel is that far too little interest has been taken by hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that I speak for all hon. Members here when I say how much we welcome the hon. Gentleman's taking part in our debate.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to extend his point a little. What he says is regrettable, but true. People—and hon. Members—in other parts of the country may be waking up pretty late in the day to the fact that by neglecting the debate that has been taking place largely in the south-east of England—


and I am sure that there are perfectly legitimate concerns relating to the channel tunnel and especially to the provision of links—the rest of the country is in danger of losing the benefits of the channel tunnel. Unless matters can be sorted out in the south-east, those of us who depend on links far beyond the immediate source of the controversies will also lose the benefits of the tunnel.
I make no apology for saying that my interest in the matter has been greatly stimulated by visiting France and by seeing what is going on on the other side of the tunnel. I have seen the construction project under way and the way in which the whole tunnel project is being approached as a great national undertaking, with the specific purpose of bringing maximum benefit to all parts of France, rather than simply concentrating the impact of the tunnel within the small corner of France which is directly related to it.
I have also looked at the parallel scene on this side of the channel. At this late stage, no direct route has yet been designated between the tunnel and London—never mind further north. There is still no station in London which has been designated in the long term. We still do not have approval for King's Cross. With one solitary exception which I understand will be the subject of a public inquiry, we have no freight depots designated in Scotland for the channel tunnel. The months and years tick away, and none of the infrastructural preparations which we are entitled to expect to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel extend throughout the country are being brought to a conclusion.
I remind the House that 75 per cent. of the freight that will pass through the tunnel will go north of London. This is not a parochial matter for the south-east, but is of far wider concern. I have a vested interest in supporting any small measure that can facilitate improvements.
The Bill does not prejudice the choice of route for the high-speed rail link and should not get caught up in that controversy. No domestic properties would be purchased in association with the works and, therefore, it should not get caught up in that concern. I am sure that the Bill is a small measure. I have no wish to impinge on other people's local controversies. I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly after I have made my remarks.
This is a matter of wide concern. Let us get on with the project. The tunnel is potentially a wonderful project which should do much to link the whole of Britain with the whole of the continent, yet on this side of the channel we have got bogged down in local difficulties in the south-east. Let us get the routes built, the lines designated and the necessary infrastructure in place so that when the tunnel opens we have a realistic prospect of fast passenger trains and dedicated freight routes being ready to maximise the benefits for the whole country.

Sir John Stanley: I am taking part in the debate not because proposed Work No. 4—the Borough Green passing loop—is in my constituency, but because there is a significant omission from the Bill. Compensation for people who will be directly affected by the works that are the subject of the Bill has been omitted.
As the House is aware, I endeavoured during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill to set out at some length the case, which is supported by a considerable number of us, for compensation to be paid in connection with railway works on designated lines to the

channel tunnel. The House will be relieved to know that I have no intention of reading out that entire speech verbatim—

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It was a very good speech.

Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I believe that what I said then is just as highly pertinent and relevant now.
There was a sequel to our debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill on 19 June. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport wound up the debate, he mentioned eight specific steps suggested by the Government and by British Rail to deal with the problem of noise. In connection with the first step, my hon. Friend said:
First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 348.]
If I may say so, my hon. Friend's remarks were somewhat obscure, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), thought that he might have been alluding to the possibility of British Rail offering compensation as part of the package of further measures to be discussed between itself and Kent county council.
I then tabled the following specific question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the further noise alleviation measures to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State referred on 19 June, Official Report, column 348; and whether or not they included compensation.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied:
My reference was to measures mentioned in Kent county council's paper: 'International Rail Services Noise Protection', which suggests action that could be taken where railway noise increases and exceeds specific levels at certain times of day or night. The suggested action includes the provision of noise barriers or sound insulation for people's homes. It is these physical measures which British Rail will be discussing with the council."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, column 462.]
I am therefore sorry to tell the House that, sadly, compensation, as opposed to discussion of the further physical works, is apparently not on the agenda for the discussions between the British Rail chairman and officials and Kent county council. That is regrettable.
My first question is this: what responsibilities does British Rail accept towards those whose homes will seriously depreciate in value due to the noise from the railway works? The answer appears to be that where British Rail proposes to construct a new line, or a piece of new line, it accepts an obligation both to buy, through voluntary agreements, the worst affected houses, and to pay injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act in respect of less seriously affected houses. However, where no new line will be constructed, although major railway works of another sort may take place, British Rail seems unwilling to contemplate compensation.
I ask the House to consider the impact of that policy on compensation in connection with the proposals in the Bill —not least with regard to the passing loops at Borough Green in my constituency and elsewhere in other Kent constituencies. In respect of the section of line approaching the passing loop, no compensation will be


payable, but the moment the newly constructed passing loop splits off, compensation under the Land Compensation Act becomes payable. The moment the loop rejoins the existing line, compensation ceases to be payable. It is a lottery. The situation is grotesquely unfair. Compensation will not be payable on certain sections of line, although exactly the same noise disturbance, created by the same passenger and freight trains, will be suffered. A few hundred yards away, compensation will become payable, but it will be extinguished again as soon as the loop finishes.

Mr. Wolfson: Is not the position made even more ludicrous by the fact, which was pointed out in debate in the other place, that the loop lines tend to run clear of housing, as they do in my constituency?

Sir John Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The situation is ludicrous in relation to the works proposed in the Bill, but that anomaly is a small forerunner of the even more grotesque situation that may arise when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber tonight, announces his decision on the new high-speed line. If he announces that that line will enter London from the south-east, where new track is laid alongside the existing track, there will be full rights to compensation, whereas elsewhere in London, where the same trains, whether passenger or freight will run on existing track, no compensation will be payable. If the situation is ludicrous and anomalous now, in Kent, in connection with the Bill, such an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend would create a far worse position.
What is the basis in law for British Rail's adoption of such a compensation policy? The answer is that there is no basis in law for the way in which British Rail chooses to interpret its obligations under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
British Rail has decided that, in its view, train noise approximates to car and lorry noise and it is therefore choosing to adopt the highway provisions of the Land Compensation Act to determine compensation in this case. That is an arbitrary decision. As I explained in introducing new clause 16 to the Planning and Compensation Bill, it would be equally possible to argue—indeed, some of us would argue most strongly—that train noise approximates much more closely to aircraft noise than to car and lorry noise and the airport and aerodrome provisions of the Land Compensation Act should therefore apply. That would entitle those living along large sections of the line to compensation. British Rail, however, is entirely ignoring what is said in part I of the Land Compensation Act about airport and aerodrome compensation and, equally, the specific provisions included in part I for payment in respect of public works being carried out under statutory provisions, as the proposed works in this case would be, in relation to neither highways nor airports.

Mr. Peter Snape: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it plain for our benefit that what he is saying is, in effect, that the extra train noise generated is to be compared with aircraft noise rather than with highway noise? Can he tell the House what impact that

comparison, if accepted by the Government, would have on the prospects of introducing any new rail services anywhere in the country?

Sir John Stanley: The position with regard to the channel tunnel trains and the rail infrastructure for the channel trains is unique. In terms of its magnitude and intensity, the development is without parallel elsewhere in the country. If it were not, I venture to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been campaigning for many years for a change in the compensation law. I do not believe that it has ever previously been the case that the value of such a significant number of homes has been faced with destruction or large scale erosion as a result of railway works of the magnitude of those proposed in the Bill.
I wish to refer to two points that were made in the report of the Select Committee in the other place. I am certainly not prepared to support the Bill tonight. I shall oppose it, because it is seriously flawed, and I wish to make that point on my constituents' behalf. But if the House decides to give the Bill its Second Reading, I certainly hope that the Select Committee appointed to examine it will consider the compensation issue in much greater depth and with much greater sophistication than appears to have been the case in the other place.
I was disappointed to read in paragraph 25 of the special report of the Select Committee of the other place, which was printed on 8 October 1990:
To propose compensation would therefore be to establish a new principle of compensation for disturbance caused by intensification of use.
It is simply not correct to dismiss the proposals in the Bill as a mere intensification of use. The Bill proposes massive new works—new works on a huge scale costing, according to the Minister's parliamentary answer, £700 million, even before the channel tunnel costs have been taken into account. The central question here is whether the proposed works are new works—new public works—which should trigger the entitlement to compensation. In my view, they most certainly should.
It is also claimed that a new principle of compensation would be established if our suggestion were accepted. That, too, is quite wrong. As the Land Compensation Act makes clear in relation to airports and aerodromes, it is not necessary for a new runway—in this case, new track —to be created to trigger entitlement to compensation. In cases where major new works permit a major increase in the volume of traffic and therefore in the magnitude of disturbance, an entitlement to compensation can already be created under the Land Compensation Act. We are not, therefore, talking about a new matter of principle.
The second sentence in the Select Committee's report with which I wish to take issue is the one which says that the proposals for compensation in these cases
would be better dealt with by general legislation.
I accept immediately that they can perfectly well be dealt with by general legislation. It is significant that, on 19 June, during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, no fewer than 180 Members from both sides of the House supported new clause 16, and proposed that the matter be dealt with by general legislation. The point that I wish to make tonight is that it does not have to be dealt with by general legislation—it can be dealt with administratively, in a non-statutory form. If hon. Members are interested in precedent, I point them to what is done by the Ministry of Defence in relation to the


build-up of aircraft noise disturbance from military airfields and, in particular, to the answer that I was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 8 May, at column 506 of Hansard, in which he confirmed that the Ministry of Defence operates a policy of voluntary acquisition of houses that are seriously affected by noise and a policy of paying injurious affection to less seriously affected householders. Both policies are operated on a non-statutory basis. It would therefore be entirely possible for British Rail to deal with the problem on a non-statutory basis.

Sir David Steel: I do not wish to intrude on what is basically a Kent issue, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one of the reasons why some of us support the general principle of legislation is that our experience in the north-east and in Scotland is that undertakings from British Rail are not really worth the paper they are written on? Many of us gave way on the abandonment of the sleeper services to Newcastle and Edinburgh—my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who vowed to raise the matter in each and every British Rail debate, would not forgive me if I did not make this point—following undertakings to the effect that the services would be resumed on electrification. We were then given a whole lot of reasons why they could not be resumed, all of which were known at the time the original undertaking was given by BR. That is why some of us prefer to place our faith in legislation rather than in undertakings.

Sir John Stanley: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the preferred course is general legislation. When we proposed that course on 19 June, our proposal attracted widespread support. Personally, I am saddened by the fact that the Government missed an open opportunity to deal with the issue in a flexible, fair way when the Planning and Compensation Bill came before the House. However, the Government chose to let that opportunity go by and we are left with no suitable public Bill before the House. It is therefore right to make the point that it is wholly precedented, in matters of precisely this kind, for the question to be dealt with by administrative means.
I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the Bill, which would place my constituents, and constituents elsewhere along the line, in a grossly unfair position. It is quite wrong, as a matter of principle, that people should have the value of their main asset destroyed, or largely destroyed, as a result of the public interest in improving our communications infrastructure. It is of the utmost importance that this serious injustice should be righted as quickly as possible.

Mr. Roger Sims: I confess that I am surprised to be speaking in this debate. The Bill completed its passage in another place at the turn of the year and we have been waiting ever since for it to appear in this House. It went into abeyance for some time, and curiously a carry-over motion in respect of the Bill appeared on the Order Paper a week ago. The motion was not passed and, hey presto, we find ourselves debating this Second Reading tonight.
I must declare a particular and precise personal interest; works No. 6 are not only in my constituency, but are only a few hundred yards from my house and literally

within earshot, as I was reminded at midnight last night. Some work is already proceeding on the site. I am assured that it is simply preliminary work to the work for which parliamentary approval, as sought in the Bill, is required. However, it makes one wonder what noise levels will be involved in the construction work. We have had no information or assurances about that point.
The issue is allied to, although separate from, the channel tunnel fast link. That link may or may not follow the particular route which is the subject of the Bill. Uncertainty about the route continues and we wait anxiously for more information. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that we could not expect a statement about that until October. I was told today that there is a rumour that my hon. Friend the Minister is to make a statement on Thursday. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister can clear the air this evening, but that would obviously be helpful for all of us and our constituents. Wherever it is finally decided that the fast link shall run, between the completion of the construction of the tunnel and the use of the link, it is inevitable that the tunnel traffic will use the route that is the subject of this Bill, and that gives rise to my wider concerns.
The implications must be very much heavier use of the existing lines. British Rail has issued estimates of increased traffic along the line. Although I do not intend to burden the House with statistics, it is interesting to note that at Bickley, adjacent to works No. 6, it is estimated that, while four freight trains would have passed that point in 1990 every 24 hours, we can expect 32 freight trains in 1995. That is close to the figure of 27 referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) as the increase in the number of freight trains. Of those 32 trains, 15 will run between 11 pm and 7 am. We all know how very much more noise trains make at night than in the morning and their effect when we are trying to get a little sleep. There is bound to be a noticeable increase in passenger traffic. There must be more noise, especially from freight trains.
That point has not been denied. The Committee in another place stated that it accepted that
there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens.
What will be the effect of that noise? To answer that I call in aid a Department of Transport booklet entitled "Transport and the Environment", which states:
Noise is a pollutant. It can cause stress and annoyance. It can disturb communication and, more subjectively, cause distress and irritation".
It is not difficult to visualise the effect on hundreds of properties in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt).
What assurances have we had from British Rail about the effect of that increased freight traffic and increased noise? We have had no assurances of any value. It is incumbent on BR to provide forms of environmental protection to ensure that residents close to the line will not be adversely affected and, where that is not possible, to ensure that those people are adequately compensated.
British Rail denies that it has any legal obligation to provide protection or compensation. I accept that that is correct as the law now stands. However, BR also seems to be denying a moral obligation, and I cannot accept that.


Amongst its literature about the channel tunnel fast link, British Rail issued a leaflet entitled, "Noise and the New Channel Tunnel Rail Link" which states:
If the required noise level cannot reasonably be achieved by alternative means, BR will pay for sound insulation to be installed in homes that are affected. In addition, compensation may also be paid under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to people whose homes lose their value as a consequence of the level of noise that will result from operating the line.
However, that is in respect of the new link. If it applies to the new link, why should it not apply for the intensification on the existing lines which will carry the same traffic? To be fair, the Department of Transport has recognised and addressed that problem. In its booklet, "Transport and the Environment" to which I have referred, the Department states:
The prospect of a possible major new railway line between London and the Channel Tunnel and increasing public sensitivity to noise generally prompted the Government last year to appoint a Departmental Committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines which relate equitably to the standards already set by regulations for new highways.
The Department then refers to the committee's report which was published at the end of February and then states:
The Committee's recommendations are intended to provide the basis for making noise insulation regulations for new railways.
That is the nub of the matter. British Rail is prepared to take steps about new railways, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) explained, it seems quite unwilling to do so in respect of the intensification of use of existing lines.
The statement issued on behalf of the Bill's promoters reads:
The Board have given assurances that, if Noise Insulation Regulations are made applicable to new railways in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Mitchell Committee, then, to the extent that these Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways, the Board will apply them in relation to the works proposed in the Bill in the same way as would have been required if the Regulations had been in force before the works were executed.
That sounds all right in principle, but we should notice the saving clause
to the extent that those Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways".
In other words, if British Rail is required by law to pay compensation, it will. I am glad to hear that but, by implication, if it is not so required, presumably it will not pay it.
I sought to argue in the debate on 19 June—I will not cover the same ground again—that, although physically we are talking about existing lines, to the extent that the channel tunnel will link existing lines to the entire continental rail network, that line is, to all intents and purposes, a new line and should be treated as such. As a result, therefore, we must contend with the environmental protection and planning issues to which I have referred. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, the Minister argued on 19 June that he could not accept the new clause that my right hon. Friend so ably moved because it had far wider implications. I have to accept that that may well be the case, and that that Bill had

national implications. However, British Rail has promoted this Bill specifically to enable it to carry out the works that are detailed in the Bill.
Ideally, undertakings should be written into the Bill to deal with noise protection and, where that is not possible, there should be compensation. If we cannot have that written on the face of the Bill, we want cast-iron assurances about exactly what British Rail proposes to do in the circumstances that have been described. Those undertakings should include not only the payment of compensation, but the purchase of property. We are not talking only about a noise problem—although the noise can be such as to make it virtually impossible to live in property close to the line; vibration can also present a real problem, especially with the long heavy freight trains that we expect to use the line in the numbers that I have suggested.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South should not be under any illusions about the strength of feeling on this matter in the London borough of Bromley and in my constituency. My hon Friend the Minister was good enough to visit the borough and has seen for himself how close many properties are to the railway, so I am sure that he understands the effect of the intensified use that we are discussing.
The threat of that intensified use has not simply devalued properties along the line; some are unsaleable. It has now reached the stage where some estate agents will not take such properties on their books. I have files of letters from constituents who are anxious to move away on retirement but who are unable to do so, and many more from people who prefer to stay in their own homes and who knew, when they bought the properties, that there was a railway at the bottom of the garden and who expected to have trains running along it, but who did not know—they could not have visualised—the enormous increase in traffic that will be the inevitable result of the line being used for channel tunnel traffic.
Neither I nor my constituents are being unreasonable or obstructive. Obviously, on parochial grounds, we can hardly be expected to welcome the extra traffic which the tunnel will generate coming through our district, but we accept that that is inevitable. For its part, British Rail must accept that it has obligations to us. If it is prepared to do that, in the form of firm commitments and not just pious phrases, I would not wish to impede the Bill's progress, but if those assurances are not forthcoming, I shall seek to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, and I hope that the rest of the House will join me in that.

Mr. Peter Snape: I had better get the non-controversial part of the Bill out of the way first, before commenting on some of the speeches that have been made. The Bill is not solely and exclusively about Kent, Network SouthEast and the various routes to Dover; it also provides for the building of a chord at West Hampstead, thus linking international services with destinations on the west coast mainline about which I feel strongly, representing—as you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—a constituency close to Birmingham.
Those of us who have supported the channel tunnel project throughout our parliamentary careers have always been concerned to ensure that it benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. The provision of such a chord, linking


the east and west coast mainlines, is an essential part of the future success of the United Kingdom's passenger railway including, of course, that in Scotland.
I am a little surprised at the controversy that the Bill has already engendered. I understand the views of hon. Members representingKent and elsewhere about the likely disruption to the lives of their constituents once the Government have announced the preferred route for the new high-speed link. I join those hon. Members in pressing the Minister to put us all out of our misery as quickly as possible by letting us know the preferred option preferably before the recess—I, too, have read the conflicting press articles of the past week—so that those along the route will know their fate and those elsewhere can feel suitably relieved as soon as possible.
That might be the last time in my speech that I receive so many affirmative nods from Conservative Members, because the rest of this Bill, which is causing so much controversy, only sets out the need for a number of spur lines and loops to increase the capacity of international and commuter trains on the existing busy routes to Dover. The principle of routing trains to London via Tonbridge and Maidstone was established in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
As far as I understand the speeches that have been made tonight and the reasons for the blocking motion which has led to this debate, hon. Members representing Kent constituencies feel that their constituents should be compensated by monetary or other means for the additional traffic that will use the existing route after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens. It is somewhat surprising to hear them say that. Some of them have given the impression that, regardless of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, nothing—no railway—must be allowed to disturb the tranquillity of what they call the garden of England. I have always taken the view that that is a short-sighted attitude. If there is no new rail link and if there are no new improvements to the existing rail links, I have a feeling that the number of additional heavy goods vehicle movements that will result from the opening of the tunnel will cause more disruption to the tranquillity in the garden of England than any of the spur or loop lines that we are discussing.

Mr. Rowe: I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be totally fair-minded. There are those of us who accept the need for a purpose-built line between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country, but who feel that the people of Kent—and much of the rest of the country—would be better served by a route that passes only a few habitations rather than by a combination of routes affecting literally thousands of homes.

Mr. Snape: So say all of us. However, that is not what the Bill is all about. We do not have such a route at present, because there is a considerable amount of controversy about exactly where it should run. The Bill is about the improvement of the existing rail route. Without such an improvement the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and of other hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies will find their passage by both road and rail to and from London considerably inconvenienced. Perhaps it is just my innate pessimism, but I have a feeling that, regardless of the provisions of the Bill, inconvenience is coming.
To concentrate solely on the Bill, it appears to be the view of hon. Members who have spoken so far—or the view was inherent in their speeches—that there is something unique about channel tunnel trains using the existing rail network, so special and specific compensation should be paid to people in Kent who, in the view of some Conservative Members, will be adversely affected by the passage of those trains.
I have made the point previously—although it did not arouse great popularity among the people to whom I made it—that it is an odd philosophy to buy a house near a railway line and then complain about the noise of trains. I made the point during the Select Committee which took evidence on the Channel Tunnel Bill. People said, "Ah, but when we bought our houses there were not many trains. As the channel tunnel will mean extra trains, surely we are entitled to some compensation. Whether it should be paid by British Rail or the Government, we leave to you." Again, I find that philosophy somewhat hard to understand.
I am often accused in these debates of being such a rail buff that I am blinded to the realities of life for people who do not share my support for the railway industry. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) indicates from a sedentary position some agreement with that. People are entitled to their opinion. I do not have any great affection for the railway industry, believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker. It did not pay my father or me one iota of what we were both worth. However, that is a purely personal view. I am prepared to accept that there might be some dissension in the ranks of the Conservative party about that opinion.
It struck me as surprising that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that his constituents found that their properties were unsaleable because of fears about the extra rail traffic that would be generated by the channel tunnel. If people who live alongside the existing railway line cannot sell their properties, I venture to suggest that the reason might be the depth of the current recession as much as the proposal to run extra trains on the line. I have often made the point, and I do so again, that I have never discovered a domestic property of which the value was reduced by its proximity to a comprehensive railway service to and from the capital city. If any Conservative Member can produce an example, I am willing to be surprised. It looks as if that surprise is heading my way.

Mr. Wolfson: I beg the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that blight has arisen which stems from fear of the unknown. It is real and significant blight. In the town of Swanley, houses close to the railway line have dropped in value by much more than comparable houses in other parts of the town as a result of anxieties about freight trains and the noise that will be produced, especially at night. It is real blight.

Mr. Snape: I have exchanged opinions with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on many occasions over the years. I accept the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents. I hope that it will not sound too callous about the anxieties of his constituents if I say that it is for hon. Members to reassure their constituents about the reality of the position. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned freight trains. There is nothing unusual about freight trains on railway lines—except under this


Government, because much of the freight that was previously carried by rail now goes on heavy goods vehicles which are much more obtrusive than any railway line in terms of the environment and pollution. I hope that together we can examine that in a moment.
Let me deal with the extra passenger trains, which I gather are also regarded as a problem. I remind hon. Members for Kent constituencies that increases and decreases in the number of trains on the main line from the Kent coast are nothing unusual. Let us confine ourselves to more modern times—say the past 50 years. The Kent coast electrification scheme about 30 years ago resulted in a large increase in passenger trains. Compensation was neither considered nor paid for the intensification of the railway service. I remind the House that the trains that were introduced following electrification were electrical multiple units running on the old-fashioned jointed rail tracks which were considerably noisier than the modern electrical multiple units travelling on continuous welded rails.
To turn to freight, I remind the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Chislehurst that during the 1960s there was a great deal more freight than there is now on the line to which the Bill refers and about which Conservative Members raise the anxieties of their constituents. I have looked back at freight flows by rail in the 1960s. They included coal from the Kent pits, oil for ships and for Richborough power station, and cars from Lenham. Soft fruit and manufactured goods were carried to a much greater extent by the train-ferry system than, alas, they are today. In addition, general goods were moved to local stations throughout Kent. There was the noise of shunting at yards at stations such as Faversham, Ashford and Tonbridge, to name but three, all of which are now empty of freight traffic.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the length of modern freight trains. Again I remind him, without seeking to score any points, that the freight trains of the 1960s were loose-coupled, unbraked small wagon trains which clanked and banged their way along in a much more noisy way than present-day freight trains. In the 1960s and earlier, for obvious reasons, many of those trains ran through the night because the intensive commuter passenger service, then as now, took up a good proportion of the train paths during the hours of daylight.
The other freight trains that ran in the 1960s but do not run today carried paper products and coal from Maidstone to New Hythe and coal, especially from the east midlands, to Southfleet cement works. Without exception, that traffic now travels by road. None of it uses the railway lines of Kent.
Before the war—to end these reminiscences, which I have gleaned from other than personal sources—there were no fewer than 40 freight transfer trips a day from Brent or Firm Park to Hither Green through Peckham and Lewisham, none of which uses the railway tracks today. So it is not true to say that the freight which will be engendered by this project is something new for Kent.
Does the hon. Member for Faversham wish to intervene? If so, he should do so rather than simply pull strange faces which do not do anything for the tone of the debate or to excite me.

Mr. Moate: I proposed to reserve my comments until later, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know why I was reacting. I was hoping he would appreciate that we have moved on a lot in the last 50 years or more, when clanking freight trains were part of the way of life. We expect a higher standard these days to help to prevent noise pollution. Perhaps he will come up to date and appreciate some of the problems facing people living along railway lines which can expect intensification of use.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, or I did not explain myself well enough, or he was too busy pulling faces to listen to what I said. One reason why freight was lost by the railways and moved on to lorries —which, despite 30 or 40 years of progress, are no less obtrusive in the 1990s, despite the higher standards which the hon. Gentleman and I desire—was precisely because of those old-fashioned methods of freight carrying which were common in the United Kingdom, not just 40 or 50 years ago but until the mid-1970s.
The clanking and clanging of the unbraked freight train did not disappear from British Rail until comparatively recently. Some Conservative Members appear to be objecting to the very modernisation that the hon. Member for Faversham urges. We are talking now about modern freight trains with air brakes running on continuous welded rails and, under this measure, passing through newly constructed loops of up to 900 m in length. I cannot imagine any other country objecting to such progress, but it obviously makes the hon. Member for Faversham tuck his head under the bedclothes in terror at the thought of such trains running past his bedroom window. I hope that other, less easily frightened Conservative Members will use the opportunity to reassure their constituents about the so-called horrors to come, because the rest of us in the United Kingdom have an interest in the outcome of the debate.
The Government's pledge is that the new project will benefit as much of the population of the country as possible. Without the provision of passing loops and extra works, many of a minor nature, many of the bottlenecks in the south-east will make the passage of such freight trains more difficult for the rest of the country.
It is likely that if these works do not go ahead, the rest of us will suffer the same increase in heavy goods vehicles that some Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies appear to look at with a more relaxed attitude than do the rest of us. I put it no higher than that. I think that I see the hon. Member for Faversham indicating dissent at those remarks. The freight must go by road or rail. If the improvements to the railway line inherent in the Bill are not carried out, it is not fanciful to suppose that it will go by road. Nor is it fanciful to say that that will be enormously more disturbing to the environment of the hon. Gentleman's constituents than any proposals in the Bill.
About 75 per cent. of international freight coming into the United Kingdom after 1993 will be going to destinations beyond London, most on direct services. It is, in our view, essential that that freight is not delayed in the south-east to the disadvantage of the west midlands, the north of England and Scotland.
I ask Conservative Members in a non-party way to reflect on the effect on transport patterns in this country of their wishes being acceded to as regards the payment of compensation resulting from intensification on existing


railway lines. The competition between road and rail, so beloved of the hon. Member for Faversham and others, would be distorted in an even more anti-rail form in future were their pleas to be accepted by the Government.
The cost of compensation under the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and particularly section 42, would have to be borne by the customer if the Government insisted, as did the Government of the day, that no public money should be spent on the project. Presumably the demands that are now being made would have to be met from the depleted resources of British Rail, so making it even less likely that rail freight could be competitive in its non-stop battle against road freight. Road hauliers face no demands similar to those being made on British Rail.
If the pledge of the Secretary of State—so far not backed up by any evidence or extra cash—to encourage freight traffic to transfer from road to rail is to mean anything, the Government must ensure that no additional burden is placed on any sectors of British Rail, particularly on rail freight.

Sir John Stanley: My constituents and those in south-east England and London will be noting carefully that the Labour party is opposed to compensation being given to those whose homes have been destroyed in value by channel tunnel traffic. That will be noted in many marginal constituencies in London and the south-east. Will the Labour party's opposition to compensation for the intensification of use of the railways be combined with the removal of compensation for the intensification of noise disturbance from airports, which currently carries compensation?

Mr. Snape: We are terribly impressed by those deep political points which, typically, came from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). If he wishes to spend the time of debates such as this making cheap political points, he will no doubt do so. But that will not earn him any greater respect than did his previous activities in the House. If we are talking about the proposed new rail link, there are circumstances in which compensation should be payable. We are talking about high-speed trains but not about a new rail link. We are discussing the intensification of service on an existing railway.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman, before he goes round Kent distorting the reality of the situation—and he must be desperate to have made those points in his intervention—that my hon. Friends and I would not allow such a concession to apply only in Kent. We hope that channel tunnel freight trains will pass through our constituencies, too, that channel tunnel freight terminals will be built in other parts of the United Kingdom. Will we be entitled to the same compensation, or shall we tell our constituents that the only people whom the Conservative party care about are those who live in the affluent suburbs of Tonbridge, or wherever the right hon. Gentleman temporarily represents?
Proposals for other railway projects will apply not only to London and the south but to other parts of the country. For example, proposals have been made to open existing freight railway lines to passenger trains from Nottingham, through Mansfield to Worksop, and through Leicester to Burton. If the principle of intensification is to be accepted,

British Rail may show an even greater reluctance to reopen railway lines in the rest of the United Kingdom and the enormous additional cost will fall on the public purse.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling may try to explain away his support for the channel tunnel to his constituents. His position is close to that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). He particularly supports section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which specifically precludes public support for the protection and provision that, belatedly and in the run up to a general election, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to establish during the passage of this Bill. I am not too bothered about the right hon. Gentleman, because, like most other hon. Members, I do not take him particularly seriously anyway.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How very rude.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady has just arrived and cannot wait to get her name on the record. She has not heard any of the debate so far. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling should explain the discrepancies in his support for a Bill which led to a situation about which he now complains to his constituents and to people in the south.
I shall continue to argue that the railway alternative for moving freight is infinitely preferable, whether it is in the west midlands or in the more leafy suburbs of Kent. I hope that the Minister for Public Transport will make it plain that, if the pleas of Conservative Members are to be accepted, Opposition Members will expect such provision to extend throughout the country and to be funded directly from the Treasury rather than from the already over-stretched budget of British Rail.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Government consented to the deposit of this Bill by British Rail. We support it and urge the House to give it a Second Reading so that the Committee can consider it in greater detail. It concerns the construction of the facilities necessary to carry freight and passengers through the channel tunnel and is therefore important for the whole country.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) raised the important issue of the treatment of road and rail freight. It is not my job to answer the points raised in the debate—that is for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who would wish me to deal with some of the points that are not pertinent to the Bill. How the burden is placed on the road or rail operator is important for the schemes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).
As for rail freight, the Government believe that any rail operator—in this case, British Rail—should be responsible for undertaking any measures deemed necessary. In our debate on 19 June, I said that British Rail was already in contact with Kent county council to plan the works that both parties deem necessary. It is for British Rail to undertake those works. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that one must, in all fairness and equity, look at comparable situations throughout the country. It is not possible to isolate one particular problem


and the Government acknowledge that there is a problem in this case. I dissociate myself to some extent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—

Mr. Snape: The Minister had better.

Mr. Freeman: —well, the serious remarks that he made pertaining to the issues that we are debating.
The Government accept that there is a real problem relating to noise caused at night by freight trains on those lines. That is not to say that there are not additional problems in other parts of the country. Several hon. Members have written to me about the problems on rail lines in constituencies which are not in Kent. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends are in no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I take the issue seriously and acknowledge that a problem exists, although we may disagree about how to approach the problem.
As for road freight, through the regime of taxation, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, our heavy goods vehicles bear one of the heaviest burdens in Europe. They contribute approximately four to five times the value of Government funds for the maintenance and further construction of our road and motorway system. Our hauliers pay a much higher proportion than those in many other European countries. Any financial burden that may be placed on road hauliers in the future in relation to noise mitigation measures is already amply covered by taxation. In their role as the highway authority for trunk roads, or through the revenue support grant to local authorities for their work on highways, the Government amply cover the expenditure.
In a brief intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) raised a point that is outwith the Bill and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will want me to deal with it. It concerns class 471s. I sought to deal with that issue in the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill which was debated recently. Although further work is needed on the detail of the investment submission, as I made clear in the debate, British Rail and the Government recognise the importance of replacing and improving the existing rolling stock for the Kent coastal services. It is a matter of investment priorities. It is important that British Rail completes the Kent link services first—a massive investment programme of more than £500 million—before turning to the 471s. In the course of this year's public expenditure survey, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider the relative importance of further assistance to British Rail to enable it to continue its investment programme. Although it is for British Rail to determine its investment priorities, we understand the importance of that project.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised several issues. He repeated the arguments deployed on 19 June and alluded to passing loops, the parallels with aircraft noise, and the fact that, in his judgment and in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), the opening of the channel tunnel, the associated works and the new freight services constitute a major new work. The Government are aware of those arguments. The fact that my right hon. Friend outlined an alternative way to deal administratively

with the issue is helpful. His definition of "administrative treatment" may be slightly different from that of the Government, but if by that he means a non-statutory approach, I hope that as time passes he and his constituents, and some of my other hon. Friends, will feel a little more assured about what British Rail is accomplishing with regard to noise mitigation. I am certain that those measures will not entirely satisfy some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is the approach that British Rail and the Government are adopting at present. With the advice and representations of the local authorities involved, the rail operator is deciding what to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst raised similar issues. The Government in no way seek to exclude the London boroughs, including Bromley, from the wider issues of noise mitigation. Reference was made to Kent county council because it has made specific representations. I know that I speak for British Rail when I say that conversations with Kent county council in no way exclude similar conversations with other appropriate local authorities.
In my speech on 19 June, I said that the Government are considering the Batho report, which the House will have already studied and which deals with a range of matters associated with excessive noise, including those relating to aircraft, the intensification of use of railway lines, roads and other nuisances. The Government will make a statement on that in due course. I cannot envisage when, but the announcement will represent the Government's comprehensive approach to noise problems.
As for press speculation on the timing of an announcement about the rail link, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst does not believe what he reads in the newspapers, and he should not be led to believe that there is any significance in any particular newspaper article. It is an important subject, and as soon as the Government have considered the issues, we shall come straight to the House to make a statement, but I cannot forecast whether that will be before or after the recess. Any suggestion that the announcement will be made when the House returns in October as a statement of Government policy is not true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) will doubtless seek to speak later and I shall read with care what he says. He raised the important issue about the fear of the unknown. British Rail and the Government should take whatever action they can to mitigate that fear. In the debate on 19 June I announced that I intend to take an initiative, although it can probably be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who originally put the thought in my mind. British Rail and the Government—I accept the key responsibility—will talk to representatives of the professional advisers from building societies, banks and firms of solicitors who can advise people whose properties are affected by the line. We shall seek to ensure that they are not alarmist and do not exaggerate the problems created either by the intensification of use of existing lines or by a new rail link when it is built. I intend to speak to leading representatives of some professional organisations shortly to see what can be done to ensure that we do not exacerbate a problem that we acknowledge exists.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have no illusions about the strength of feeling on the


subject. Although we support the Bill and believe that it should be given a Second Reading today, I assure the House that we shall continue to give the problems of noise as they exist throughout the country our full attention. We do not seek simply to ring-fence the problems of some of my hon. Friends in Kent, nor would they wish us to do so. I accept the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that score, as I have made plain on a number of occasions. We shall continue to give the matter our careful, close and continuing attention.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister comment on the likely attitude of his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to any such concession, whether applied in Kent or anywhere else? Would such a concession make railway expansion in the United Kingdom more or less likely?

Mr. Freeman: I have always said that I accept the argument advanced by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), that in any announcement and consideration of a new high-speed rail link, there must be—

Mr. Snape: That is what I am talking about.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer in my own way.
Any announcement of a new rail link involves a massive increase in rail capacity and it is most important that there should be no doubt in the minds of those affected as to where they stand in relation to noise mitigation and compensation. I hope that the House will be persuaded by my arguments tonight.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making a number of assertions, not least on a day when some of his ministerial colleagues have shown discourtesy to the House by holding a press conference rather than making a statement to the House. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister is contemplating that, when the decision is taken, a statement will be made to the House and not outside this place. I also welcome my hon. Friend's well-demonstrated, clear interest in compensation and noise protection matters. I shall return to the specific assurance that he gave about building societies because I wish to enlarge on that point.
We are discussing a simple matter. Wherever a form of public—or, in the case of roads, private—transport operates there is an agreed level of noise beyond which the Government believes that it is not right to subject citizens. That standard applies to transport, whether vehicles on roads, aircraft or railways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an important point when he said that rail noise was more akin to aircraft noise than to the almost continuous roar of motorways or other roads.
The recent report of the Mitchell committee, which was set up to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard, raised another important issue. It said that
the traffic on a railway can be intensified by minor construction such as passing loops and re-signalling or traffic can be re-scheduled into previously lightly loaded times. This

can lead to situations where intensification could not have been foreseen and is so great that it completely changes the nature of the line.
That is important—there comes a point when the intensification of use effectively means that we have a new line. What is more, at a time when we are linking our railway system to that on mainland Europe, it is interesting that some of our mainland European friends, such as the Netherlands, have taken that very point and reclassified some lines that have been subjected to intensified use as, in effect, new lines.
It is also important that the present expectation, and in some cases experience, of the noise on existing lines well surpasses the level which the Mitchell committee recommended as a tolerable noise level. Therefore, there is a powerful case for insisting on British Rail providing protection to the houses alongside some parts of those lines. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will make that commitment rather than simply saying, as he appeared to say in his opening remarks, that if he looks hard enough he can find precedents to allow British Rail to escape that obligation.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: Many people have a passenger line at the bottom of their garden which they have accepted as part of their way of life, but when this becomes a freight line overnight, with trains half a mile long rumbling through the night, the character of the line is changed. Is this not a new line, by any judgment?

Mr. Rowe: That is my view. It would be better if the trains rumbled through the night without cease, because a curious phenomenon of human hearing is that it adapts to continuous noise very much more easily than to sporadic noise. When I worked at Edinburgh university, it was in a purpose-built modern building of the kind with which we are all so familiar. One could hear everything in the room next door. One of the cheapest ways to overcome that problem was to have pumped into the room what was called white noise—a kind of toneless muzak—which would quickly become unnoticed but which would allow one to carry on one's business without being overheard from the room next door.
The European Commission has at last taken seriously the business of co-ordinating the railways of Europe. This will mean that there will be pressure to harmonise protection for citizens alongside railways in a way that will prove helpful to our constituents. I hope that both British Rail and my hon. Friend the Minister will keep abreast of what is going on in Europe.
I was disappointed by one statement in what was otherwise an admirable production from the Department of Transport about environmental protection. It said that freight is not "time sensitive". I think that that means that freight as conducted in the past by British Rail has never been time-sensitive because it has nearly always been late. I believe that there will be a massive intensification of the use of freight lines. Contrary to what British Rail believes, there is a great market for freight that is time-sensitive and that delivers even perishable goods to urban centres in the middle of the night, as is necessary. However, if we have such a system, people must be protected.
Of all the miseries that come to the surgeries and through the postbags of hon. Members, probably some of the most intense, and certainly the most common, involve those whose lives have been destroyed by blight. This is a massive problem. British Rail has, on the whole, handled


the problem of individual sufferers from blight with as much sensitivity as it is easy for it to use. However, it has not shown itself capable of taking account of people whose misery has suddenly intensified. For example, somebody may have been widowed in the past month, or someone's marriage may have broken up. There is a constant need for British Rail to go on buying up the properties of people whose lives have been destroyed. I should like to see rather more generosity in that.
In any part of the country, properties are moving into blight, but a similar number of properties are moving out of blight. As blight is mainly a fear of what is to come, and often when it has come it proves to be much less frightening than people thought it was, there is scope for examining whether it would be possible to set up a national agency. This could be a purchaser of last resort for people who have made every effort to dispose of their property and who, as in the example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—I share his experience—live in properties that estate agents will not even take on their books.
People in this position can have all their capital tied up in this one asset. They cannot move. If they are promoted, they lose the promotion because they cannot take the job. If a spouse has died, the widow or widower cannot get rid of the property. For 101 different reasons, people's lives can be in ruins. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government, the private sector and the voluntary sector, working together, to devise an agency as a purchaser of last resort. Once it had been set up, it would finance its continuing operation. I accept that houses would have to be bought at a discount and that there should not be a distress payment. The price paid should be between the going rate and a distress payment. The agency would then be able to sell the property at a profit once whatever was causing the blight had been overcome. If that were done on a large enough scale—a nationwide scale—it would not be out of the question to alleviate what is, for virtually every hon. Member, probably the largest single source of human distress.

Mr. Roger Moate: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing into our debate on the Bill the Networker express programme. It is particularly relevant, when considering the immediate future of our railways in the south-east, to know precisely what will happen to that programme. In some respects, we are talking about new rail lines. The Networker express service rolling stock is much more than rolling stock. It is almost a new railway line. It is of tremendous importance, because it will increase capacity on the Kent line by 50 per cent. Few other measures could be carried through at a relatively small capital expenditure—I use the word advisedly—and have such a dramatic effect on rail services.
It is a little galling that we are all encouraged to exhort the Government to approve a programme, but when we do so we are told that a formal submission has not been made. I welcome the comforting words that the Minister offered

us, but what we want is formal approval this autumn, so that we know that that important programme can be put in hand as soon as possible.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's helpful response to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). In contrast, the hon. Gentleman's irrational and irascible approach to the matter has done a great disservice to British Rail and to the Bill. If he calls himself a friend of the railways, I can only say with friends like that, who needs enemies? The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point.

Mr. Snape: Not as badly as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Moate: There are some moments when one has to agree with the hon. Gentleman although they are seldom.
The hon. Gentleman has completely missed an important development. There he was, believing that he was defending railway investment by arguing against compensation for those suffering from intensification of noise when already major and helpful concessions have been made. He has completely missed the point and his diatribe made him sound very callous. Many of our constituents will be surprised to find him saying that people living alongside a railway line knew what they were likely to get and so should put up with intensification of noise. That was the message he was delivering. However, British Rail has already taken steps in the right direction, which he should know about but clearly he does not.

Mr. Snape: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also tell his constituents that if this minor Bill is not approved—I understand that some of his hon. Friends intend to vote against it tonight—in 1993 they will experience the misery that heavy goods vehicles on Kent roads will cause. I think that we are talking about some 1,500 heavy goods vehicles which will not be on Kent roads as a result of the freight trains about which he complains. Those heavy goods vehicles will have a far more damaging effect and so far I have yet to hear the hon. Gentleman or anyone else talk about the intensification of noise that some of the more rural roads will have to suffer when the channel tunnel opens.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman seems to be assuming that we are against the Bill, but he is wrong. Many of us enthusiastically welcome British Rail's investment in preparation for 1993 to have a first-class high-speed rail link ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. If the hon. Gentleman were to listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, he would learn something. The readiness with which the hon. Gentleman attacks is quite alarming. Most of the time he is attacking British Rail and the Government's record, which is infinitely better than the record of the Labour Government whom he supported.
We should emphasise that the Bill makes it possible to have in place a first-class railway system ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. It always surprises me that Ministers and British Rail seem to hide their light under a bushel when it comes to the building of the new railway. Because of the arguments about the new high-speed link, which was never going to be in place before the turn of the century anyway, we have failed to proclaim the fact that when the tunnel opens it will be possible to catch a


non-stop train from Waterloo through to Paris or Brussels, a three-hour service probably manned by a British Rail or a French driver.
The majority of the British public have become so used to the knocking campaign against everything British that they have come to the view that there will not be a rail service ready for the opening of the tunnel. But there will be and it will be a good service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, it is coming as a result of £1·5 billion of new investment to make sure that the service is ready. Why are not we proclaiming the fact that Britain is not lagging behind? We will have a good, attractive rail service in place ready for the opening of the channel tunnel, and the Bill provides for that.
If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, as he seems to do more and more these days, he would understand that many of us support the Bill. But with such legislation, we are entitled to tell British Rail that we want to ensure that the terms are right for all those of our constituents who are likely to be affected.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help a lot if we had a station?

Mr. Moate: I am tempted to become involved in the much bigger argument. We are all aware of the need to make progress on the international station, but that is not my subject at the moment. We are fully aware of the need to make progress and we can all see the benefit of that.
Those who take the rather old-fashioned view that there should not be any form of compensation or help as a result of intensification of noise should consider what is happening. Some of us received a letter this morning from Kent county council—I will not read it all—which says:
a project team which will include Kent county council officers is in the process of being established by BR's Railfreight Distribution to look at the issue of noise protection for existing lines on the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Despite this, it still remains unclear at this stage whether there is any prospect of BR paying compensation to those affected, or funding noise protection measures.
Doubt remains, but British Rail, working with the Kent county council, has taken the initiative in finding ways of ameliorating the problem for those living near existing lines, and we should welcome that major step. If everyone took the negative attitude shown by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East we would not have progressed that far.
I should like to go further. Why cannot we ask British Rail to give an undertaking to examine ways of compensating—not necessarily under the statutory regime, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) sensibly put it, as a matter of administration—those who suffer the serious dislocation, disruption or damage caused by noise intensification? I suspect that the number affected would not be large and that British Rail could handle the problem. If it gave such an undertaking, that would be a major advance in not only securing the passage of the Bill —important though that is—but in railway development generally.
If we have secured, as I believe is the case, an important concession in Kent in respect of the amelioration of noise on existing routes through, perhaps, Faversham, Sittingbourne and other parts of my constituency—we hope that it will not happen, but freight trains might travel through those places at night, on lines that do not

currently carry them—the same concession must apply to south London, which will almost certainly suffer noise intensification as well, in which case not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but many Labour Members will be clamouring for help for their constituents.
I do not believe that such a scheme would impose an enormous burden on rail development. Much of it will be concerned with noise insulation measures, the cost of which need not be exorbitant. I say to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—who I know cares passionately about railway development—that the best way to achieve broad acceptance of railway development in the rest of the 1990s and into the next century is to accept the logic of giving protection to those people who live alongside existing routes—by offering them help, particularly with noise insulation, grants, or even compensation if their property is severely damaged.

Mr. Snape: I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the Minister, without receiving much of a response: would the countrywide provision of noise insulation or compensation make the Treasury warmer than it is at present towards future development, or would that have the reverse effect?

Mr. Moate: If one reverses the sense of the hon. Gentleman's question, it implies that he would be prepared to go ahead with railway development even where he realised that it would cause severe environmental damage —and that is something that few constituents would accept. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we must get it right. If the modest price of intensification of usage of existing lines is noise insulation grants, we must face up to it. However, I do not accept that that would impose a great burden on British Rail or private investors. Any major development—whether it involves railways, roads, or the construction of new buildings—is subject to the polluter pays principle, whether noise or any other kind of pollution is involved. It is universally accepted that environmental protection should be built in, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, alone almost, should fight that concept.

Mr. Snape: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of any cases in which, in respect of road intensification, compensation has been paid, or is to be paid, to people living alongside roads that have seen a dramatic increase in traffic in recent years?

Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is reawakening memories of earlier debates about noise compensation. Many of us are not unhappy about the possibility that the concession already made by British Rail will lead to a re-examination of the principles that apply elsewhere. I am not saying that the Treasury will like that; in areas where traffic has intensified, however, many people feel that it is only fair for the Government to offer help with noise insulation.

Mr. Rowe: I believe that, because an absolute standard has been set in relation to the amount of noise that people are expected to put up with, protection is being provided in some areas where intensification has taken place.

Mr. Moate: It is all a question of degree.
We are not talking about a theoretical exercise. British Rail has been very helpful, and has gone some way towards meeting the point. My hon. Friend the Minister is


trying to resolve the problem: the Government, unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, are taking it seriously.
I believe that British Rail should consider providing compensation when serious damage is done to existing properties. In doing so, it would secure considerable public support. The cost would not be excessive, and the future path of railway development would be eased. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can give us any encouragement on that score, I for one will not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am doubtful about the message that we have received from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Again, we are encountering a divided policy. In the debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill, many Opposition Members—not just Labour Members—firmly supported the provision of compensation.

Mr. Snape: What my hon. Friends supported was the principle of compensation. We all accept that the noise that will be generated by a new high-speed rail link constitutes a unique phenomenon, and is likely to cause a good deal more dislocation than any noise caused by the existing links. We are not talking about the intensification of traffic on existing railway lines.

Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very badly briefed; he has not done his homework. The new clause and debate to which I referred specifically concerned the very line that we are discussing now.
I support the intentions of the Bill, but like many of my constituents I consider it incomplete. I therefore cannot support the Bill itself. As the promoters have said, it will allow British Rail to carry out major works on the line that runs from Ashford to London, via Maidstone and Otford. The works are part of an investment programme costing more than £1 billion, on which British Rail has embarked to meet the huge surge in demand for rail travel that is expected to follow the opening of the channel tunnel.
I should make it clear—especially to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, who tried to suggest that those of us who were concerned about protection and compensation were sticking our heads in the sand, and were not interested in progress—that in my view it is high time that Britain took rapid steps to provide not just an adequate but a top-grade infrastructure for British routes to and from the channel tunnel, both road and rail. We have many lessons to learn from the French who are already ahead of us in building their rail links, junctions and stations ready for the opening of the tunnel and the years that follow. There are major benefits to be gained from providing an adequate rail freight service which can compete effectively with lorry traffic.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) about the estimate of the impact of the growth in trade after 1992. Part of the impact will be to increase by 100,000 every year the lorry movements on the roads of Kent and the south-east. In comparison, in the first years of operation after the opening of the channel tunnel, rail freight services will offer—depending on the vigour with which the services are

sold—the equivalent of 400,000 trunk lorry movements a year over the same roads, so I accept that there are clear benefits to be gained from moving freight by rail. That gain will limit the growth of heavy lorry traffic. It will be an environmental and energy-saving gain and something that most of us will applaud. It is also a clear gain for Britain as a whole. Therefore, it seems even more of a pity that the individuals whose homes will be severely blighted or made unsaleable—and when their value is already depressed by the fact that they live close to a quiet and little-used railway—will overnight, on the day that the tunnel opens, find themselves alongside a main European railway line. Those people have, as yet, no recourse to compensation or to noise and vibration protection measures.
We are not asking for anything unrealistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, we are asking for reasonable measures which could ease the passage of the Bill and future railway development all over Britain. We have had to fight for every concession on this. When British Rail first published its alternative routes for the channel tunnel—the high speed line—it had no concept of providing any sort of noise protection or compensation. It based its approach on the law for existing lines and that has been a public relations disaster. It is utterly inexcusable and a total contrast to the way in which Eurotunnel—a private company—has operated at Folkestone from the beginning, producing good compensation plans, which have been kept live over about 10 years, for dealing with people whose homes have been damaged in any way, whether financially or environmentally, by development there. So there are lessons to be learnt and we need to learn them fast.
Because we have had to fight every inch, it may sometimes seem to other hon. Members that Kent Members become unnecessarily worked up about the issue, but I believe that we are justified in doing so. We value the interest taken in the matter by those from other areas of the country. I could not be more strongly in support of the need to ensure that the national transport infrastructure is ready and in position to service the channel tunnel properly so that the benefits are spread all over Britain. If that is not so, there is no point in having the tunnel.
So far, there has been a sharp contrast between this country and others, and I am critical of the Government in that respect. The French have used the development of the high-speed rail link as a generator of economic development and have funded it accordingly. The line to Brittany was one-third paid for by Government money —separately from SNCF's two-thirds contribution—in order to achieve economic development. Some parts of this country—and certainly parts of the south-east—are not looking for dynamic economic growth because they are already over-heated, or were until recently. However, other parts of the country badly need such growth and that is where rail development will play a major part, as it should.
I refer to the passage of the Bill in another place and stress that when it reaches its Committee stage in this place I hope that it will be more fully examined and greater note taken of various issues. I hope that firm recommendations will be made to deal with the problems of those who are disadvantaged by the intensification of use of existing lines. While asking for a more in-depth consideration to be taken in this place than was carried out in another place,


it is interesting to note that, during the Third Reading debate in another place, all those who spoke referred to the concerns that had been raised in Committee and on Second Reading about the intensification of use, its environmental effects and its negative effect on people's houses. They asked that those effects should be taken into account by the Government and by British Rail during the further stages of the Bill, so it is wholly reasonable that precisely that issue should be emphasised now.
Some progress has been made and the Government have responded. I will summarise some of the steps in that progress. The Minister for Public Transport has made it clear—he confirmed it again today—that he and the Secretary of State accept that intensification of use of existing railway lines will pose a problem when the channel tunnel opens and that he would consider that problem carefully. I am grateful to him for confirming that again today.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill concluded that, just as the Mitchell committee had been established to examine noise from new railway lines, a similar study should be undertaken into noise arising from intensification of use. The Committee's conclusion makes it clear that this is an issue of real import.
The recommendation of the Department of the Environment's noise review working party in 1990 was that
consideration should be given to extending the regulations about the insulation of residential property against railway noise so as to include householders affected by the significant intensification of use of a railway line which could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Surely there is common agreement that for people who bought houses along many points of this line the intensification that they now face could not reasonably have been foreseen.
I refer to the Mitchell committee's recent report which has already been mentioned. Its conclusion was
to recommend to the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines.
We are asking for that insulation standard to be extended to intensification of use.
In this debate, as in the debate on the Compensation and Planning Bill, it is arguable whether we are talking about intensification of use on existing lines or whether the capital investment put into the lines plus the opening of the channel tunnel—the biggest ever infrastructure project in Europe—constitutes a new line with new traffic, operating in a wholly different way from anything that has happened before.
I ask for a narrower point than my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept. I ask that the channel tunnel routes between London and Folkestone should be accepted as unique in terms of the volume of and increase in night-time traffic by rail. That is a major difference compared with routes in other parts of the country. I also ask that British Rail should be asked to confirm the lack of an equivalent level of night-time traffic elsewhere and should be asked whether similar increases are expected elsewhere in the next five years. That is a key measure of whether the situation in Kent and south-east London is unique.
Kent county council has put in an immense amount of work over the past three to four years on achieving sensible noise standards. I suggest that the Kent authority's noise standards should form the basis of any

noise scheme unless we get subsequent national noise regulation standards which would obviously be better than the local ones.
British Rail should produce a noise action scheme which would concentrate first on protection by barriers and by insulation. Many examples of that exist on the continent, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can use experience from abroad, evaluate the costs and know that such methods work. The noise action scheme should also include provision for compensation by monetary payments for the loss in value to which so many speakers have referred.
The Secretary of State should go further and require British Rail to implement an agreed scheme for a specifically defined area. If he did that, it would do much to restore confidence among people in Kent and south-east London, and it would help them to accept the fact that the benefits of an effective rail freight scheme are real and can help environmentally, as well as provide the right and proper method by which to move as much freight as possible on the railway lines between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country.
I am not against the intentions of the Bill, but I am dissatisfied with the fact that it still does not provide my constituents and those of all the other Kent and south-east London Members—other areas of the country could also be affected at a later state—with reasonable protection and compensation.

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an extremely useful debate on an important matter. The debate has been extremely constructive in that everyone has welcomed the need for providing a rail link to the coast. The major source of disagreement has been the question of compensation, and I shall deal with that in a few moments. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked a question about the Networker which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) was especially concerned about compensation, and the fact that there was virtually a new line, even if it might run on old rails—or, rather, run where the old rails used to be. He said that that circumstance should give rise to a special form of compensation.
We have to take two factors into account. We must accept that this is a national problem, and is not limited simply to railway lines. Roads, too, can be affected, and we run into serious difficulty in determining exactly where to draw the line. I do not say that that cannot be done, but national legislation is not now in place because of that difficulty.
Perhaps what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about Kent county council's work on standards could represent a foundation upon which something could be worked out. It is a difficult problem, and we must make it clear that we cannot consider compensation in isolation; we must deal with all forms of transport, not just one.

Sir John Stanley: National legislation is in place for civil airports and military airfields, where public works leading to intensification of use trigger entitlements to compensation. The problem is that British Rail has chosen —arbitrarily, I suggest—to align railways with roads


rather than with airports. The provisions exist; they are on the statute book and are administered by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Thorne: British Rail is going to considerable lengths to discuss the matter at a high level with Kent county council. We accept that the county council has done a considerable amount of work in the past few years.
There is no doubt that there are statutory provisions that apply to new railway lines, but we are talking specifically about lines being used more intensively. We must await the outcome of the discussions between British Rail and Kent county council to see whether there is a basis on which to work. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to treat one section of the community differently from others. Real problems arise on the road network, and it would be wrong if people affected by them were not taken care of in the same way.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was concerned about sleepers. I know that he and one or two of his colleagues have had problems travelling on the sleeper to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman felt that British Rail had broken an undertaking, but I do not believe that it has. British Rail gave an undertaking to consider the matter after the electrification of the line to see whether the service could be made viable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of suggesting that British Rail should lay on a sleeper service especially for Members of Parliament. That would be entirely wrong. The service has to be financially viable, and I believe that British Rail has considered the matter.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, raised the question of blight, with special reference to the value of property being seriously affected. I know that that can happen; it has happened in my own constituency. Conversely, where blight is lifted, the opposite can happen. I knew of a number of houses that were blighted because a flyover was to be built over a roundabout. When it was decided to re-route the road, the value of the properties affected increased by 50 per cent. overnight. So I know that it happens, but, nevertheless, we must ensure that we can cater for all those who lose and not just for one group, particularly when the funding is then thrown upon the users of the route. It would not be fair to pick some people out for special treatment. We must be consistent, and that is why this is a national matter which will clearly have to be resolved in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was anxious to have a cast-iron assurance regarding compensation and blight purchase. I am afraid that I cannot give him any cast-iron assurances, but I can assure him that every possible attempt will be made to arrive at an amicable agreement on this point between Kent county council—and, for that matter, the London boroughs, should they so wish—and British Rail.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the Bill, and I was pleased to receive support from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Bill is essential to northern England and Scotland. That is absolutely true. We must accept that certain inconvenience

will be caused, and that is why we must go to great lengths to try to ensure that those who are inconvenienced by the extra use are not unduly out of pocket as a result.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied to many of the questions that were raised, and I do not want to repeat what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also referred to the question of intensification, and felt that if, as a result of the Bill, our rail system were connected to the European system, a new line would be involved. That is an interesting point, but it must also apply to roads, and we must try to identify exactly how what is proposed can be made separate and special. My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the blight, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging British Rail's sensitivity in trying to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend's suggestion of setting up an agency as the purchaser of last resort was noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is to be hoped that we shall hear a little more about that in due course. Nevertheless, blight is a great worry to those trapped in such circumstances.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend was trying to be helpful in saying that efforts would be made to reach agreement between the local authorities concerned and British Rail with regard to compensation or forms of noise protection —I am not sure which. Earlier, however, he said that he felt that the matter had to be dealt with on a national basis. There is a problem in reconciling those two propositions. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can encourage me to think that British Rail is ready to make an undertaking to extend the scope of the committee with Kent county council to include compensation—or is that too optimistic?

Mr. Thorne: I think that my hon.. Friend is being a little too optimistic, as he suggests. The matter will certainly be discussed in Committee, and any undertakings that are sought can be more properly directed in that way. I was referring to two separate issues—on the one hand, the Bill and the way in which British Rail is trying to reach agreement on compensation or sound-proofing—it is one thing or the other—and, on the other, belief that, ultimately, we must find a national yardstick by which we can determine whether compensation should be paid. If we do not have a national yardstick, there will tend to be enormous variations and much criticism from different parts of the country about the fact that they have been dealt with in different ways.
There has been a great deal of agreement about the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight, and that it will make progress in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 10.

Division No. 214]
[9.39 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alton, David
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Donald
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Blair, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brazier, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Beggs, Roy
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)






Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carr, Michael
Haynes, Frank


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chapman, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Chope, Christopher
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Illsley, Eric


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Michael


Cox, Tom
Jack, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janman, Tim


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Kilfedder, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Fearn, Ronald
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Flynn, Paul
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lamond, James


Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Freeman, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


French, Douglas
Lightbown, David


Fry, Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gale, Roger
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Lord, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Loyden, Eddie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mildred
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Gorst, John
Maclean, David


Graham, Thomas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McMaster, Gordon


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hague, William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maxton, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Meale, Alan


Harris, David
Michael, Alun


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Iain





Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


O'Brien, William
Summerson, Hugo


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Parry, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Pike, Peter L.
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trimble, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Prescott, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Riddick, Graham
Wallace, James


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rooney, Terence
Watts, John


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wells, Bowen


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Short, Clare
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. Gary Waller.


Speed, Keith





NOES


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Sims, Roger


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. Mark Wolfson and Sir John Stanley.


Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments in lieu of a Lords Amendment and a Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

`.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if—

(a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and
(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

(2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

(a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and
(b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

(3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

(a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and
(b) the Board has directed his release under this section,
it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.

(4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and
(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

(5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

(a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and
(b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and
(c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;
and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.

(6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").

(7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.

(8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

(a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and
(b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

with the following amendment:

The Lords agree to the Amendments after Clause 22 proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Amendment made by the Lords to insert a new Clause (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment), namely:

Insert the following new clause—Duty to release discretionary life prisoners—

No. 1, in line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert
("(1) This Part applies to a person sentenced to—

(a) life imprisonment, whether or not for an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; or
(b) during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or
(c) custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act;
where the Court by which he was sentenced ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the Order.")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, and the Government motions to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 7; and Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18, and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Mrs. Rumbold: The House will recall that when it first considered the Lords amendments to the Bill on 25 June, the Government tabled amendments on discretionary life sentence procedures in substitution for amendments which had been proposed by the Lords. These amendments were accepted by the House. While the other place has also accepted these amendments, it has sought to amend them further, in the ways shown on the amendment paper.
The main question raised in these Lords amendments is whether the new procedures that we have proposed for the review of discretionary life sentences should also extend to prisoners who receive the mandatory life sentence—that is, those who are convicted of murder. The House will recall that the new procedures for discretionary life sentences have been proposed in order to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne.
Under the new procedures, when the judge passes a discretionary life sentence, he will announce in open court the period of time for which the prisoner should remain in custody to punish the offence. After that period has expired, the grounds for the prisoner's continued detention will be solely that the offender continues to pose a danger to the public. He will be entitled to have his case reviewed periodically by the Parole Board, acting under the special procedure, and the Home Secretary will be required to release the prisoner if the Parole Board decides that he is no longer a danger to the public.
Mandatory life sentence cases, however, raise quite different issues and the Government do not agree that it is appropriate to extend a similar procedure to these cases. In a discretionary case, the decision on release is based purely on whether the offender continues to be a risk to the public. The presumption is that once the period that is appropriate to punishment has passed, the prisoner should be released if it is safe to do so.
The nature of the mandatory sentence is different. The element of risk is not the decisive factor in handing down a life sentence. According to the judicial process, the offender has committed a crime of such gravity that he forfeits his liberty to the state for the rest of his days. If necessary, he can be detained for life without the necessity for a subsequent judicial intervention. The presumption is,

therefore, that the offender should remain in custody until and unless the Home Secretary concludes that the public interest would be better served by the prisoner's release than by his continued detention. In exercising his continued discretion in that respect, the Home Secretary must take account not just of the question of risk, but of how society as a whole would view the prisoner's release at that juncture. The Home Secretary takes account of the judicial recommendation, but the final decision is his.
It is within that framework that it has been possible for Ministers to adopt and apply policies to ensure that those who murder police officers will serve at least 20 years in prison.

Mr. David Trimble: May we have an assurance that it is still the policy of the Government that people who murder police officers shall serve at least 20 years in prison? If so, why is it that the average period served in prison by a person involved in the murder of police officers in Northern Ireland released within the last five years has been not 20 years but 13 and one third years? Does the Minister believe that it has been appropriate for only that amount of time to be served in prison in a situation where the danger is greater and where the need for detention is also greater than in the circumstances with which she has been dealing?

Mrs. Rumbold: As I said, in cases where police officers have been murdered, it is very much the Government's belief that the Home Secretary should have accountability and should be able to ensure that such people spend at least 20 years in prison. To transfer that responsibility to the Parole Board or to some other body would represent a fundamental departure from the principle that major decisions of public policy and the public interest should be taken by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament.
We do not agree that the ECHR judgment in the Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne case contains any implication that our procedures on mandatory cases should be changed. If anything, that judgment suggests the contrary, because it is based on the argument that if risk is the only factor in a prisoner's continued detention, that continued detention is lawful only for so long as the prisoner continues to be a risk, as determined by a court-like body.

Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend said that Ministers were accountable to Parliament for the decision about how long a life sentence should be served. Where does the Home Secretary announce his decision and how is that transparently made available to the House for debate?

Mrs. Rumbold: This is not a case where the Home Secretary announces his decision at a given time. When the judiciary passes sentence in court, that sentence is passed as a life sentence or as life imprisonment, which means that anyone who commits murder will for the rest of his or her days be subject to the judgment of the court that it is a life sentence. When that person comes out, or if they do not come out, is for the Home Secretary to decide when he takes into account, not just the usual elements, but the public interest element, and that element is the most important part of a rounded and larger decision.

Mr. Wells: How do we know that?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is not a question of how one knows that. It is a matter which Parliament has decided. That decision is that the Home Secretary shall be accountable, and if my hon. Friend permits me to develop the point further he may understand precisely the reasoning behind it.
As I said, it is not the same for mandatory sentences. I am reinforced in that view by the decision of the European Court on Human Rights in the case of Bamber, a mandatory life sentence prisoner. Like Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne, Bamber claimed that the lawfulness of his continued detention needed to be considered by a court-like body, but the commission decided that in that mandatory case the lawfulness of detention was incorporated at the outset in the original trial. We believe, therefore, that the court would accept that different considerations apply in mandatory cases and that such different considerations should be reflected in a different set of procedures.
Were Parliament ever to consider another method, it would require the most serious study of how it would be otherwise discharged. Parliament would have to be satisfied that its influence in these matters was not lost because the Home Secretary was no longer accountable to it for the decisions involved. That might involve far-reaching changes in the way in which sentencing for murder was conducted, perhaps including statutory guidelines on the length of time that those convicted for different kinds of murder should serve. Such an exercise would, of course—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments relating to the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments in lieu of a Lords Amendment and a Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, again considered.

Mrs. Rumbold: Such an exercise would, of course, be fraught with great difficulty. The Government are therefore firmly of the view that no substantive change in the arrangements for mandatory life sentences for prisoners should be made at present; nor could that be contemplated in the future without a great deal of further thought being given to its implications.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that it is an offence to those of us who are fully committed to and fully support capital punishment for murder to have to accept inconsistency in the United Kingdom? The murder of a policeman or member of the security forces in Great Britain seems to be treated in a different manner from the murder of a policeman or member of the security forces in Northern Ireland. When will the Government ensure that there is consistency of treatment of those guilty of such murders?

Mrs. Rumbold: During my time in Parliament we have had a number of votes on exactly those matters and, on each occasion, Parliament has voted not to reinstate capital punishment. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that those debates are taken seriously and hon. Members consider, as a matter of conscience, where they

stand on that issue. It is a matter for Parliament, and Parliament has decided, which is exactly the right way for us to conduct ourselves in this country.
Of the other Lords amendments, No. 2 would require the judge to state a term in every discretionary life sentence case, after which the prisoner would be entitled to be released if the Parole Board concluded that he was no longer a risk. The amendment does not, however, take account of the possibility that a discretionary life sentence might be imposed not because the offender is judged to be a danger to the public, but solely because the offence that the offender has committed is so serious as to justify a life sentence on that account. In other words, this would be a discretionary life sentence passed in accordance with clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill, rather than clause 2(2)(b).
A discretionary life sentence based purely on the seriousness of the offence would of course be very rare. The vast majority of discretionary life sentences are passed because there is an element of mental instability which means that the prisoner will be a risk to the public for a period which cannot be predicted in advance. But occasionally discretionary life sentences are passed not because the offender is perceived to be a risk to the public, but because of the nature of the offence which he has committed. In such cases, it would be inappropriate and illogical to require the court to state a term within the sentence which was appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. In those circumstances, the whole of the life sentence is there to punish the offence, not just part of it.
I should emphasise once again that it will, of course, be entirely at the discretion of the judge whether to pass a discretionary life sentence of this nature. I am sure that it would be most exceptional, but I do not consider that it would be appropriate to limit the judge's discretion in this matter in the way that the Lords amendment does.
Amendment No. 3 would permit the Parole Board to direct that the licence of a discretionary life sentence prisoner should be lifted after a certain period. That would mean that the offender involved was no longer subject to any form of supervision, and could not be recalled to prison if he showed signs of reverting to his former ways. It seems that the amendment makes nonsense of the whole concept of a life sentence. If a life sentence is passed, surely that must mean that the offender is subject to some restriction for the rest of his life, whether he is in custody or out on licence.
The offenders whom we are talking about in this context will have been given life sentences because there has been judged to be an element of mental instability in their behaviour. It seems to me to be quite wrong to get into the position where no action could be taken if, for example, someone had received a life sentence for sexual assaults on young children, then showed signs—even some years after his release on licence—of wanting to put himself in a position to commit similar offences again.
So long as the licence remains in force, steps can be taken, through tighter supervision, the attaching of new conditions of the licence or, ultimately, the offender's recall to prison, to ensure that potential victims are not exposed to danger from him. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong to deny the public the protection that is conferred by the existence of the licence for the remainder of the offender's life.
Finally, I refer briefly to Lords amendment No. 7, which would remove the power that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have to keep a discretionary life


sentence prisoner in custody for up to six months after his release had been ordered by the Parole Board, if he considered it to be in the public interest to do so. That very limited power was sought to cater for the exceptional circumstance where the prisoner's release at a particular moment might, for example, exacerbate a public order situation or complicate the handling of some sensitive terrorist incident.
We believe that such a limited residual power for my right hon. Friend would be in accordance with the recent ECHR judgment, which referred to the possibility of the Executive's being able to detain the prisoner further on grounds of what it termed "expediency". However, having reflected on the views expressed on this matter in another place, my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the kind of situation which this power is intended to cover could be handled without recourse to the exercise of that kind of reserve power. The Government are not, therefore inviting the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 7.
The remaining Lords amendments are consequential on the ones to which I have referred.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Minister of State made a brilliant job of a very bad brief. The principal Lords amendments provide that, in all cases where a life sentence is imposed, the trial judge shall fix in open court the minimum period that a life sentence prisoner should serve, rather than make a private recommendation to the Home Secretary, as happens at present.
We have debated that subject at length. I was astounded that, even when the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) intervened in the speech of the Minister of State to ask about accountability, the Minister's response was unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to get her to say something more fully about the disparity between the judiciary and the Executive. When most of us learnt about the British constitution at school we thought that there was a healthy separation between the judiciary and the Executive, and that when the Executive nakedly interferes with the judiciary it can only be at the cost of justice.
The Lords amendments also provide that the Parole Board, operating under a special review procedure, shall take decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners and their recall on release, and not merely make a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
The Lords amendments are more detailed than that and I shall go through them briefly, one by one. Lords amendment No. 1 extends the Government's proposals to. prisoners serving mandatory life sentences. Lords amendment No. 2 removes the power of the courts to determine that the new release procedures for discretionary lifers should not apply to the case before them. Lords amendment No. 7 removes the power of the Home Secretary to defer release for up to six months.
We are delighted that the Government have seen the light on one of those amendments. I suppose that that is a 25 per cent. success rate. If the Lords keep up the process of attrition, even more enlightenment may come to the Government. However, I suspect that that may be our last small victory.
Lords amendment No. 3 gives the Parole Board the option, in discretionary life sentence cases, of ending the licence after a period of time, rather than its having to remain in force until the offender's death.
I do not intend to make any arguments about the case that we have won, so I shall concentrate on the three remaining amendments. We take extremely seriously Lords amendment No. 1, which extends the provisions for mandatory life sentences. The insight displayed in the House of Lords was a textbook example for this House. The clarity and perception of that insight were remarkable, as one would expect of Members of the other place, who often have more experience in matters judicial.
In accepting the need to change the operation of discretionary life sentences, the Government are attempting to comply—reluctantly, as we all know—with the decision taken last October by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. While the European Court's findings in that case were restricted to discretionary sentences, the procedures for those serving mandatory life sentences for murder are just as objectionable.
Whenever a convicted murderer is sentenced to life imprisonment, a simple but astounding process is set in train. Until I got involved in this Bill, I did not realise what happened and I feel that many hon. Members still do not realise that. The trial judge informs the Home Secretary, via the Lord Chief Justice, who adds his own views, of the minimum period of imprisonment that he considers necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Taking those views into account, a Home Office Minister—not the Home Secretary—lays down the minimum level of time that the prisoner will actually serve, otherwise known as the tariff. When that minimum time has lapsed, the decision on when to release the offender is based on an assessment of his or her risk to the public. That decision is made by the Home Secretary following a recommendation by the Parole Board.
Figures on the operation of the procedure, prepared by the Home Office for the House of Lords Select Committee, show that in most cases Home Office Ministers required prisoners to serve longer minimum periods than their trial judges considered appropriate. Between 1 April and 30 September 1988, minimum periods were set for 106 persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. In 63 of those cases, Home Office Ministers laid down longer minimum periods than the trial judge had recommended. In 34 cases, Ministers accepted the trial judges' recommendations, and in nine cases they set lower minimum periods.
More recently published figures show that, of the 274 mandatory life sentences considered in 1990, Ministers set a longer period than that recommended by the trial judge in 90 cases and a shorter period in 43 cases. We believe that it is wrong in principle for Ministers to lengthen sentences by executive influence and decree. Unlike the judge, the Minister makes his decision without having heard the evidence in court; in effect, it is a sentencing decision taken behind closed doors and against which the prisoner cannot appeal.
We feel that it is contrary to justice for the Executive to interfere in the judicial process in that way. Some Conservative Members demand longer sentences—often without thinking through the arguments—but I ask them to consider the problem. We are not arguing for longer or shorter sentences. We are arguing on the principle that it is wrong for the Executive to become involved.
Members on one side of the House or the other might be extremely angry with one Home Secretary for consistently reducing the length of sentence or consider


that another was a good Home Secretary because he consistently increased the length of sentences. The problem arises because the Minister involves himself or herself in the judicial process in an arbitrary manner—arbitrary because how can a member of the Executive make such a decision without any experience of the court trial, without having heard the evidence, and without having been able to make a fair appraisal of what went on?
10.15 pm
Similarly, decisions for or against the eventual release of life sentence prisoners and on their recall from licence can result in further lengthy periods of imprisonment. Such decisions are also taken by executive process whereby the Parole Board makes recommendations to Ministers.
The Lords amendments, which the Opposition believe are pure, good, common sense, would ensure that decisions on the release and the recall of prisoners serving life sentence were made by a process which, unlike the current system, would satisfy the requirements of natural justice.
It is difficult to see any logic in retaining the Home Secretary's veto over the release of prisoners convicted of, say, domestic murder in circumstances of extreme stress while relinquishing it in cases where a long sentence had been imposed for a calculated series of rapes or following a manslaughter verdict on an unpredictable and unstable mentally disordered killer. Where is the logic in that?
The Government have argued that Members of Parliament have been willing to support the continued abolition of capital punishment only because of the assurance that the Home Secretary will retain control over the release of prisoners convicted of murder. Opposition Members consider that a highly dubious argument. The case for the reform of the life sentences on the lines proposed by the Lords Select Committee has widespread support from many people and groups within the criminal justice system who are also opposed to the abolition of capital punishment as well as from those who support it. If life sentence procedures were changed, most Members of Parliament would vote on capital punishment in precisely the way that they do at the moment.
Although the case of Thynne applied only to discretionary life sentences, it is widely felt that when the case of mandatory life sentences comes before the European Court of Human Rights it will apply the same principle that is established for discretionary life sentences. We understand that such a case will come before the European Court shortly. Once again, the British Government will be found lacking.
Lords amendment No. 2 involves removing the power of the court to determine that the release procedure should not apply to the case before it. In its wisdom, the other place saw that under the Government's proposals the trial judge had the power to determine that the new release proposals would not take effect in relation to the case before him by not specifying a term after which release can be considered by the Parole Board.
In another place, it was suggested that that power was needed for the exceptional case where the crime was so serious that the trial judge felt that the offence warranted life imprisonment irrespective of the risk to the public. However, in the Bill that power is very wide. I hope that the Minister will take this point. In effect, the court is given

the power to opt out of the new release procedures and the circumstances in which it should exercise that power should have been clearly defined in statute.
I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too—that is the other side of the argument that I was putting earlier. It is bad when the Executive interferes with the judicial process. It is also bad when the legislature does not make its legislation clear enough to the judiciary. We want the Bill to make it clear to. the judiciary that only in exceptional cases will the judge have that power. As it stands, we believe that it will be taken as a wide power, in which case the legislation would not achieve its intended objective.
I shall not need to deliver that part of my speech dealing with amendment No. 2, in view of the Government's change of mind, but I will delay the House a little longer to comment on Lords amendment No. 3 which in the case of discretionary life sentences gives the Parole Board the option of ending the licence after a period of time.
The Thynne judgment made it clear that when it comes to a discretionary life prisoner, a court or the Parole Board must have the power to bring the licence to an end. That argument was well made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in our debate on 25 June. The debate during the long progress of the Bill has not been party political. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have agreed or disagreed with one another—it has been that kind of Bill. The argument for providing such a power is accepted not only by Members on both sides of this House but by the majority of their Lordships.
In the debate on 25 June, the Minister of State said that the Government would make statutory regulations specifying that the Parole Board should follow a judicial process in such cases. Can she say when we shall have sight of those regulations? It seems odd that we are reaching the end of the Bill's passage through the House without knowing the content of the regulations that are to flow from it. It is impossible to judge whether or not they are acceptable without having sight of them. We hope that they will be available when the Bill returns to another place.
We feel strongly about the central, constitutional arguments that we have made concerning the nature of the relationship between the judiciary and the Executive, and between the legislature and the judiciary. We have taken a consistent line on both. We are unhappy with the Government's reaction to their Lordships' amendments on that matter of principle, and that is why we shall eventually divide the House on the amendments.

Mr. John Greenway: I sense that the mood of the House is not to delay our consideration of the Lords amendments.
When moving the amendments before us, Lord Nathan argued that, although the European Court judgment related only to discretionary life sentences, in time that court would reach a similar judgment in respect of mandatory sentences. I do not believe that that is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn.
In the Thynne case, the European Court drew a distinction between mandatory and discretionary life sentences in respect of a mandatory sentence for murder involving a premeditated killing. Thynne was not in that category. That is entirely in keeping with our criminal law, which distinguishes between murder, which involves the intentional killing of another, and manslaughter, where


the intention is less clear. The premeditated nature of murder singles it out from all other crimes, and provides the justification for a mandatory life sentence, which reflects the heinous nature of the offence alone, without any assessment of the future risk to the public.
Their Lordships argued that some murders are less serious than sadistic or brutal crimes that stop short of murder. Even if that proposition is entirely valid, I cannot see how that can justify the watering down of the mandatory life sentence that the Lords amendments would bring about. In my judgment, the converse is true, and justifies the discretionary life sentence. It also justifies the provision for the trial judge to announce in open court a term within a discretionary life sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence, and for the prisoner to continue to be detained if he would pose a risk to the public on his release.
Alternatively—my right hon. Friend touched on this —a judge, when passing a discretionary sentence, might choose to reflect the seriousness of the offence by not setting a term. The law should do what the Bill did before it went to the other place, and provide the opportunity for a discretionary sentence to be placed on a par with a mandatory sentence in response to the seriousness of the crime in question. Their Lordships seemed to be suggesting the opposite. The original wording reflected more accurately public anxiety about the rise in violent crime, and public opinion about the most appropriate sentence for murder.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I will not. I want to be brief, and we have now discussed this matter on four occasions.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about mandatory sentences, that must be outside the terms of the Lords amendment. The Lords failed to reach a conclusion on mandatory sentences; we are now discussing discretionary sentences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order. I remind the House, however, that we are now dealing with a group of Lords amendments.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), whose opinions I normally respect, has shown appalling ignorance of the issues, which are of considerable importance to the British people.
Now is not the time to rehearse again arguments about whether sentences have a deterrent effect. Let me say, however, that the increase in the number of murders and in the use of firearms in crime—and the total disregard for human life displayed by the criminal fraternity—demand that, at the very least, we adopt a cautious approach to changes in sentencing. The other place has now accepted that this is no time to abandon the mandatory life sentence. Nor is it the time to extend the Bill's new procedures in regard to discretionary sentences to mandatory sentences. It is on that point that the House must disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Trimble: I, too, will try to be brief—if only because I was in the House until 3.30 this morning, and have no wish to repeat the experience.
The Government are drawing a distinction between mandatory life sentences and what they call discretionary life sentences. They are establishing a procedure for discretionary sentences that they believe will be sufficiently judicial to satisfy the requirements of the European convention, while retaining the existing system for mandatory sentences—that is, leaving matters entirely to their own discretion, which will be exercised in the manner described by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The Lords would have extended to mandatory life sentences the quasi-judicial procedure that the Government propose to confine to discretionary life sentences.
I support the view taken in the other place. I do not approve of leaving the matter to the Government's discretion. That would be bad, partly for the constitutional reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield —reasons of principle. It is also bad because it can lead to policy changes that produce alarming results.
10.30 pm
We have had confirmed this evening the Government's present policy for part of the United Kingdom, which is that people who murder police officers should serve 20 years. That may have been the Government's policy for another part of the United Kingdom during the first few years of the previous decade. Between 1981 and 1984, no person sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of members of the security forces was released on licence in Northern Ireland. For some reason, which we can explore at another time, there was a change of policy in 1985. From 1985 to 26 June 1991, 51 persons convicted of murder of members of the security forces—policemen, prison officers, regular soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—were released, and not one of them had served 20 years. The longest sentence served was 17 years and that was served by only one person. The shortest sentence served was seven years and that was served by three people. The average length of sentences is interesting. I mentioned one such average to the Minister during an intervention, but I did not receive a reply. I hope that the right hon. Lady will reply during the wind-up.
For persons released between 1985 and 1991, the average term served by those sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment was 13·55 years. For persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the average period served was 13⅓ years. In the same period, for those sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Regular Army, the average sentence served was 12 years. That demonstrates the exercise of Government policy.
We have been told about the Government's policy for this part of the United Kingdom and I have demonstrated what a change of Government policy produced elsewhere. It is objectionable that we have a system that can accommodate such changes of policy and that such changes can occur surreptitiously, without the necessary public debate. For that reason, together with the reasons of general principle adduced by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, it is objectionable for such decisions to be made by the Executive. There should be a form of judicial procedure—one could argue about its exact nature—that is more open and more accountable and not subject to the whims of changing policy. That would be much more desirable.
I should have liked an opportunity to expand on this. At an earlier stage of the Bill I should have liked to deal with the concept of mandatory life sentences, which I think is objectionable. It would have been better if the Government had accepted the earlier Lords amendments to dispense with mandatory life sentences. Unfortunately, due to having to attend somewhat abortive discussions some distance away from this building, I was unable to participate in such a debate. We want to register our support for the Lords amendments and the hope that, at some time in the near future, we will see Government and ministerial discretion over periods served in prison replaced by a more open, logical and accountable system that more closely reflects the gravity of the offences.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not blame the House of Lords, but these amendments are an attempt to get by the back door what they have conceded should not be given by the front door—the abolition of the mandatory life sentence and the introduction of an element of discretion by someone other than the Home Secretary. That cannot possibly be acceptable to the House, and we should reject it if there are no better arguments.
Only one argument has been suggested. It has been said that this will result in an appeal to the European Court and the inevitable rejection of what we are deciding today. I doubt very much whether that confident assertion made by Opposition spokesmen here and by the movers of the amendments in another place would be upheld. In the case of Thynne in the European Court of Human Rights, a clear distinction was drawn between the mandatory and the discretionary life sentence. The court said:
the principles underlying such sentences [i.e. discretionary sentences], unlike mandatory life sentences, have developed in the sense that they are composed of a punitive element and subsequently of a security element designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner's release.
It could not be clearer that making that distinction is what the court is doing. Therefore, I believe that the confident assertion made by the Opposition and their Lordships is invalid and should not weigh with us. Accordingly, there is no reason for us to accept the Lords amendments on this matter.
The amendment dealing with the removal of the court's right to make a decision about life sentences is puzzling, because it is contrary to the argument advanced by their Lordships and advanced relentlessly by the Opposition during our previous debate on the subject—that the judiciary should have the final say. Now they do not want the judiciary to have the final decision in the matter and are therefore standing on their collective head. That shows the total insubstantiality of the Lords amendments, and the Government are right to reject them.
Lord Natham said that accepting the amendments would enable the matter to be considered in this place. We have considered them, and we should reject them.

Mr. Bermingham: What I have—

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has not started speaking yet, so how can the hon. Gentleman intervene?

Mr. Bermingham: I was, as ever, being courteous to my hon. Friend.
What I have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) amazes me. He has not a little knowledge of the courts and of how the judiciary thinks. He must have heard—as I have over the years—what the judiciary thinks about mandatory sentences: it does not like them. It does not like the idea that it can send a recommendation to the Home Secretary in respect of a murder case that the sentence should be six, eight or 10 years only to find that a junior Minister at the Home Office who has absolutely no knowledge of the case—

Mr. Sheerman: He might be a geography lecturer.

Mr. Bermingham: As my hon. Friend says, he might be a geography lecturer or a part-time car mechanic, but even if Mr. Justice So-and-So believes that the sentence should be 10 years, he can say that it should be 18 years.
I am a tired old lawyer who must declare an interest as a barrister. I notice that the once-striker-out of judges' comments—the Minister of State, or goodness knows what he is called nowadays since he has been promoted —once crossed a line through—and I declare yet another interest—a sentence passed on some constituents of mine. He increased the sentence passed by the judge but knew nothing about the case. That worries me, and when the hon. and learned Member for Burton says so glibly, "Never mind the European Court or anything else", we must remember that we are talking about people.
I remember a comment made by the common serjeant, the senior judge at the central criminal court. It was made to a jury not so long ago. It was something like, "Members of the jury, you have found the man guilty. I will write a letter to the Home Secretary recommending the sentence. What I say will in all probability be ignored." That is a tragedy. As the common serjeant rightly said—and I was there when it was said—"What I know about this case, what members of the Bar who were present in the court know about this case and what police officers know about this case will never be known by the civil servants will advise the Minister in years to come. Those civil servants will know nothing about the case." That is secret justice, and it is anathema.
When the judiciary said in the House of Lords that mandatory sentences were wrong, they were right. The Government, for reasons which must be known to their heart and which are political because they seek to strive in the face of adversity to win an election, think that the idea of being punitive is in their political interests. They destroy justice.
As a practising lawyer, I say that there are those of us who believe that justice should be above political thinking. We say gently, "Wait a moment. We are talking about real human beings and about the sentencing of people who should serve a sentence for the crime that they have committed. We are talking about the courts of tomorrow."
I look at my own Front-Bench colleagues and I say to them as gently as I say to the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are the Opposition."] I say to the Opposition of tomorrow that, when the Lords made a series of decisions, they were talking from experience. If we fly in the face of experience in the interests of expediency, the real sufferers are human beings—the people outside.
I ask the House, please, to accept the Lords amendments. They do not go far enough, but at least they will go some way down the road to reaching justice. Justice


is precious and we must not sacrifice it on the altar of political expediency for any part. I ask the Government to listen to the other place because it has something to say.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: My intervention will certainly be short, but I pray that it may be saturated with intelligence. I say that because I oppose the Lords amendment. I had the opportunity of speaking on the Bill on Second Reading and I made clear my views on the subject. I have also had the opportunity as a constituency Member, like all other Members, of mourning the terrible deaths that have been caused in my constituency by murder.
One thing has been forgotten in this short debate. If I do nothing else, I want to speak about the sanctitity of human life. Every contribution this evening has concerned justice—which I applaud, and of which I am a disciple —towards those who are guilty of the offence. However, I take the view that it is about time that we discussed in the House the sanctity of human life and the question of protecting human life.
I hold the view that the Lords amendments do nothing that will in any way enhance the sanctity of human life, and I oppose them. I oppose them for another reason, which I hope the House will find acceptable.
We have spoken about the judiciary and the Executive. I want to speak about the practical experience of murder and of people being brought to justice before the courts. What mandate do I have to speak on that? Probably like no other hon. Member, I had the task of serving as a police officer on five murder inquiries. In addition, I have had the opportunity—and I found no pleasure in it—of arresting somebody for the capital offence of murder. I hold the view that this House should consider the sanctity of human life and that, saturated with common sense and justice, we should oppose the Lords amendments.

Mr. Sheerman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but having served for so many months on the Bill I thought that a last word—or at least, a penultimate word—might be appropriate.
We have made the argument clearly. We agree with all four of the Lords amendments, and we are glad to see that the Government have accepted one of them. We have done so not because we believe, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) believes, that this is a way of getting our own way by the back door, but because, as usual, the House of Lords has confronted the issues of principle head on and brought them back to us. It is the Lords' job in our constitution to do that, and I applaud the way in which they have done it.
Having said that, we propose to divide the House because we believe that it is wrong for the Executive to interfere with the judiciary in this way.

Mrs. Rumbold: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I shall be brief.
I am grateful to the House for the views that we have heard. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne decisions in the European Court of Human Rights did not confirm anything other than that

we were talking about discretionary cases. Quite clearly, the decision on discretionary life sentences is a matter for the Parole Board to consider from the point of view of risk only, whereas in relation to mandatory life sentences, which are life sentences for murder, the court gives a whole life sentence, the discretion lies with the Home Secretary and the decision is to be considered on much wider issues than simply those of risk.
In answer to the query raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield about the rules for setting up the Parole Board, I should explain that those rules will be drawn up in consultation with the board and will fully meet the ECHR requirements.
I will pass the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about certain disparities between the two countries.
I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, but to accept Lords amendment No. 7.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 52.

Division No. 215]
[10.48 pm


AYES


Ashby, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Atkins, Robert
Harris, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Hawkins, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayes, Jerry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hill, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burt, Alistair
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwtna
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





NOES


Alton, David
Hood, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bermingham, Gerald
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carr, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Fearn, Ronald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Michael, Alun


Foster, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin





Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster)


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, jimmy


Skinner, Dennis



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes


Trimble, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18 disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 18 to the Bill: Mr. Carrington, Mrs. Golding, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. John Patten and Mr. Barry Sheerman; Three to the be the quorum.—[Mr. Sackville.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 18 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITION

Staffordshire Ambulance Service

Mrs. Llin Golding: This petition of 740 signatures was collected within two hours last Saturday morning in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme and shows the opposition to the Staffordshire ambulance service becoming a trust. It says:
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of people living in Staffordshire sheweth
That there is great concern over the proposals to make the Staffordshire ambulance service a self-governing trust.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House take steps to prevent the Staffordshire ambulance service from becoming a trust after the holding of public meetings at which our discontent can be heard.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
I beg to ask leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Holcombe Moor, Bury

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Alistair Burt: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important matter for my constituents.
In many ways, the history of the Holcombe moor application is the history of my own time in Parliament and, indeed, of a major part of my life. To explain the background to the debate, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Army has a long connection with the north-west and with my constituency. Bury is proud of its connection with the Lancashire Fusiliers, which were stationed there for many years, and Bury parish church is still the garrison church of the regiment. When I was at school, I was in the cadet force attached to the regiment. Eventually, the regiment became part of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in a previous amalgamation. The Minister will appreciate, however, that I do not intend to discuss Army amalgamations this evening.
As a schoolboy, I also walked on an area of land known as Holcombe moor. I am fond of the area and know it extremely well. The village of Hawkshaw, which is close to Holcombe, has also had a long connection with the Army. From the early part of this century, the Army had a range in the Hawkshaw area and the relationship between the villages and people of the area and the Army in that training area grew up over a long period.
When I was elected in 1983, certain disputes were becoming clear. The nature of the area was changing. People's leisure habits were changing. There was more walking in the area and disputes and confrontations began to arise between the Army and residents. They were always disagreeable because, while the Army wanted a good relationship with the residents and the residents wanted a good relationship with the Army, for one reason or another a problem arose, there were difficulties on each side and matters became tense and unpleasant. Attempts were made on both sides to improve the atmosphere. I recall at a public meeting in the area trying to improve matters, and I believe that the Army and others sought to make the best of the relationship.
Matters came to a head with two planning applications in 1986. Early that year the Army made an application for an area of land, known as Simon's Sundial cottage, to add to its training area at Hawkshaw. That provoked local concern and I took a position against that application for about 14 acres. Towards the end of the year, the Army applied to extend its training area in the Holcombe moor area by about 916 acres, a substantial acreage, and sought to extend its dry training area by that amount.
After the initial announcement about that towards the end of 1986, extensive work was done during 1987 in preparation for the inquiry. A Minister came to view the area, the Army made its proposals, invited the public to comment on them and tried to interest people in what it intended to do, and various residents groups were set up to counter the proposals.
The inquiry began in March 1988, adjourned shortly afterwards and resumed later in the year. The inquiry was extensive and I pay tribute to those who put much work into it. Various local interest groups were represented. For example, the Redisher residents association, through the

work of Mr. Roy Walsh and Mrs. Christine Bolton, did extensive work. Those who have been involved in planning inquiries will be aware of the imbalance of resources available to those who protest, particularly against a Government Department. They did a great deal of work and mobilised much support in the area.
That support was not universal. Groups such as the Hawkshaw village trust, which had maintained a long and pleasant relationship with the Army, supported the Army's application. It was also supported by Army cadet units in the area, which made a plea for more training land. A variety of interested individuals and parties made representations by letter, and environmental groups, including the National Trust, were involved. On balance, however, there can be no doubt that the number of objections that I received outweighed the number in support.
By the end of the inquiry I felt it right to explain further my position on the matter, which I had first made clear in October 1986, when I gave qualified support to the Army's position. By the time of the inquiry, in October 1988, I was able to make my position even clearer. I did so, and I stick to it—I was in support of the application made by the Army for the 916 acres, though I retained my opposition to the smaller application for about 14 acres at Simon's Sundial cottage. The two applications were taken together.
The reasons for my support are not hard to fathom and I made them clear in a submission. I recognise the difficulty of the modern Army in obtaining its training areas, particularly for urban-based territorial forces. We raise many soldiers in the Manchester area and I spoke earlier of our long and proud connection with the Lancashire Fusilliers and other regiments in the area. I am conscious of the obligation that society owes to the Army, obligations which have become more clear and stark since 1988, particularly with the Gulf war, in which soldiers from my part of the world were involved and in which one of my constituents died. There is no doubt that there is strong support for the Army, and I felt that on balance the Army could live with the people in the area.
The use that the Army was requesting of the area did not seem too extensive—the Army was not seeking exclusive use and there would be dry training and not live firing. For a variety of reasons, provided that certain reservations were accepted by the Army in its use of the land, I felt that the application was reasonable. I therefore opposed a number of my constituents, but supported others who supported the Army.
The conduct of the protesters was extremely good. They worked hard and presented a good case. Much work having been done, the inquiry sat for some time and we all sat back and waited for the inspector's decision. We started to sit back and wait in October 1988 and, frankly, we are now sick of waiting for an explanation. It has been too long and the silence has become deafening. It is about time that we had a decision. At first, we accepted and understood—whatever side of the argument we took—that it would take time before a decision would be made. No one was surprised that no announcement on the issue was made in 1989, because it was a significant year when great changes were made to the armed forces because of the momentous changes in eastern Europe, for which this country had held firm. However, concern began to be expressed shortly after that, particularly because at the end of 1989 the Army had to exercise an option on the purchase of land in the Holcombe moor area. Although no


decision had been made on the inquiry, the Army had to move and quite properly did so in order to exercise the option to take the land. Naturally, that raised constituents' concerns that some form of deal was being done behind the scenes and I was asked to inquire about it.
I wrote to the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in another place and received an explanation of why the option had been taken up. At the same time, I pressed the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), for an explanation of why the inquiry was taking so long. He replied to me in a letter dated 22 March 1990:
I can understand local anxieties about the outcome of the proposal which is taking longer than usual to conclude. It is, however, being taken forward as quickly as possible and I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so.
In April 1990, I was required to write to the then Under-Secretary once again. By then, my constituents were pressing me firmly. My letter said:
The continuing delay in announcing the result of the Inquiry is adding to speculation and difficulties in the area.
I am telling my constituents that I am 'appalled' at the length of time it is taking to resolve the matter, and I thought I had better put you in the picture.
On 24 May 1990, the then Under-Secretary wrote to thank me for my letter and said:
I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to my letter of 22 March. I am sorry that consideration of this proposal is taking longer than usual, but it is being taken forward as quickly as possible. I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so.
On 13 June 1990, Christine Bolton, one of the Redisher residents, wrote to me saying:
We find it impossible to comprehend this delay. Surely the issues involved in the matter of the land use must have been resolved months ago, and we can only assume that the delay is due to political reasons. If you are not in a position to discover what is going on there is no hope for us!
She continued:
You may be aware that 'World in Action' dealt with the issue of M.O.D. land in a programme this Monday. We were included in the programme, and it was interesting to see what is happening elsewhere.
I raise that matter with some concern because, if the media were taking such an interest, clearly the position of the Army and the Government was being put in a poor light. Therefore, in the Defence Estimates debate on 19 June 1990 I raised the issue once again. I said:
we are still awaiting the result of the inquiry even though the last hearing was more than 18 months ago. Such a delay is intolerable. The arguments at the inquiry were difficult enough, and my constituents know that, providing certain conditions were met, I supported the Army's application for extra land.
I said that I appreciated that the responsibility was not that of the then Defence Ministers, but I said:
I hope that some notice is taken of the lengthy and involved process necessary to deal with the acquisition and use of training land" [Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, column 874.]—
because the delay was becoming even more intolerable.
During the summer recess last year, the matter went quiet, but by November and December Mrs. Bolton was again writing to me expressing concern at the changes in the nature of the forces. She said that some thought was being given about whether Holcombe moor training camp would be expanded to take one of the battalions returning from Germany. Again, I sought to check with the Ministry

of Defence. The suggestion was given no time by the Minister for the Armed Forces, but it illustrated how, with no decision having been taken, speculation damaging to the Government was arising once again, and I was most concerned.
I met Christine Bolton again at Easter time this year. She referred to another television programme, in which it had been suggested that the decision would be taken not by the Department of the Environment but by the Cabinet. On 22 April, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to ask what was going on and when an answer would be given. I told him that I was writing repeatedly to Ministers and receiving no answers.
Another friend of mine, a solicitor called Colin Dawson—an excellent solicitor with a fearsome manner whom I would not like to face in court—has done a good job on behalf of residents who are involved in these matters. Colin began chasing me and asking me to get the Secretary of State to visit the area and explain why the decision was not being taken. I started to feel that I was under intolerable pressure, but I understood that it was being properly imposed by residents.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment kindly responded to me on 15 May and 3 July. On 15 May, he wrote:
I too am disturbed at the exceptional length of time that this has been before the Department and I am urgently considering what can be done to bring it to a conclusion.
On 3 July, he wrote:
I can assure you that I am vigorously pursuing the matter.
To come to the present, two questions of mine have been answered today—one by the Department of the Environment and one by the Ministry of Defence. Both answers are rather revealing, both relate to costs, and both were prompted by Mr. Dawson. In my question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I asked if my right hon. Friend would quantify the cost to his Department of the public inquiry. The answer is that the costs to the Department of employing the inspector
to conduct the inquiry and to write his report were about £10,000.
Fair enough. I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence if he would quantify the costs to his Department of the inquiry into the extension of a dry training area on Holcombe moor, Bury in 1988. The response of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was as follows:
No. It is not our normal policy to provide such costs.
Why ever not? What is the point of not providing the costs in this instance? Why should there be no costing? Can the Ministry not undertake the exercise? What is the purpose of concealing the costs of the application? Surely no element of secrecy is involved. Does the Ministry of Defence not know the costs? It seems intolerable that such a straightforward question, which can be answered by the Department of the Environment, cannot be answered by the Ministry of Defence.
A series of questions have been raised by the delay that I have described. First, who is in control of the process? Is it the Ministry of Defence or is it the Department of the Environment? Who have been dragging their feet? If responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence, it should recognise that there is concern about the delay. All the hard work that has been done locally to improve


relationships between the Army and residents, which I strongly support, is being put at risk by the delays that are taking place in London.
If the delay is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, I remind it of the criticism that it experienced in relation to the decision at Stainmore. A dry training area application was made by the Army, the inspector turned it down, but the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), overturned the decision and allowed the application. That caused great concern. Democratic processes were apparently not being adhered to, and an atmosphere of suspicion and concern was created. In the case that I have presented to the House today, there is in addition the delay to which I have referred.
The Government are much concerned with a citizens' charter and other such matters. Given a delay from October 1988 to date for a decision to be made on the matter which I have introduced, I do not know how much compensation might be suggested under the charter.
I bow to no one in my support of the Army. I am proud of my local relationship with it, which I have emphasised today. No one is unaware of my support for the Army and for its application in the case that I have outlined, but I am bitterly disappointed at what has ensued. The essence of the relationship between the public and the armed forces is consent and understanding. That requires the Army, which must have the ability to undertake its work, to offer explanations and to abide by decisions that are arrived at democratically. It also requires the Department of the Environment and the Government, with the enormous advantage that they have in these matters—certainly over opponents to planning proposals—to deal with a matter as quickly as is reasonably practical in providing an answer.
In this case, either the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of Defence has lamentably failed. My constituents, who include the Army and all their supporters, whatever their points of view—some agree and some disagree with my position—deserve rather better than they have had so far. I hope that the Minister can provide some enlightenment, and some answers to the questions that I have raised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on his success in obtaining the opportunity to raise the matter of the Army's proposals for extending its training facilities at Holcombe moor. My hon. Friend's appearance at the public inquiry and the evidence that he gave there testify to his concern, which he emphasised in his remarks this evening, that a fair balance should be struck between the Army's needs and the public's rights and interests over this important area of open land.
My hon. Friend made a powerful and eloquent speech, beginning with some fascinating personal reminiscences, and throughout it he was at pains to stress his support for the legitimate training needs of the Army. His approach to the issue has been typical of the way in which he has championed the interests of his constituents over the years. I hope that he will be here for many years in the future, continuing to serve their interests.
The inquiry was, as my hon. Friend said, held in 1988, and the inspector's report has been with my Department for two and a half years. My hon. Friend rightly considers that this is an excessive delay, and he has drawn attention to the great and understandable anxiety of his constituents to see the matter resolved. Not only do I understand that concern, but I think that my hon. Friend has been extremely patient in this matter. I agree that we must bring it to a conclusion as soon as it can be done.
My officials have now written to the local authorities concerned and to all those who appeared and gave evidence at the inquiry. The letter sets out the present position in the matter and encloses a copy of the inspector's report. I regret that it also makes it clear that, for the moment, we are not in a position to finalise the decision. That is because we now have before us evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry. In fairness to everybody, an opportunity must now be given for representations about it to be made.
My hon. Friend raised a point about the costs incurred by different Departments at the inquiry, and I shall draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Burt: The Minister has said that certain matters not before the inquiry have now been raised by the Ministry of Defence. Is that normal practice? What would give rise to a new inquiry and the consideration of new evidence?

Mr. Yeo: I hope to explain the new evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry, and the reason why I have had to write to those people who appeared at the inquiry. I shall develop the point, and then if my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the information I shall give way again.
Before I describe the evidence in more detail, I should say that development by the Crown generally does not require planning permission. Government Departments have, however, agreed to follow an informal procedure, which is set out in Department of the Environment circular 18/84, which closely follows the procedures for planning applications. Departments notify local authorities of their proposals and if, after any necessary negotiations, an unresolved disagreement remains, the matter may be referred to the Department of the Environment for determination. This may be given on the basis of written representations, or in an informal hearing. If the matter is controversial or of wide interest, as in this case, a non-statutory public inquiry may be held.
The inspector's report recommended that the Army should be allowed to use both areas of land, that is to say, the main area of 916 acres at Holcombe moor, and the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage. It is clear from his conclusions that he recognised that there was a very difficult balance to be struck between satisfying the nation's defence needs and the public's rights and interests in this land—a balance which my hon. Friend also recognises the difficulty of. He said that if the Army succeeded in its application, it would have to be tolerant of the problems of others. In his view, it would be unusual to allow the Ministry of Defence to own urban common land and to do so would be granting them a special privilege. The matter was a very sensitive one and many responsible groups of people had given evidence of the difficulties which the Army's proposal would give them in their


businesses and leisure time. Nevertheless, the inspector considered that the Army's need for the land outweighed the annoyance that its use would cause from time to time.
The inspector's conclusions closely mirrored the views expressed at the inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. He also spoke of the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the Army's needs and the requirements of conservation, but felt that in the case of the moor the Army's needs should prevail. My hon. Friend's balanced approach required the exercise of good judgment and, in the light of the opposition of some of his constituents, some political courage.
The inspector welcomed the extensive undertakings and assurances which defence representatives had given to the inquiry about how they would conduct their operations if their proposals succeeded. He also asked that careful consideration should be given to a number of suggestions for measures to reduce the impact of training on the amenity of nearby property and to provide safeguards for its users and wildlife.
The letter which has been sent to the parties today explains that, if final clearance is given for the Army training, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would propose to include conditions covering all the matters referred to by the inspector.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagrees with the inspector in one important respect, and that is with regard to the smaller proposal, the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage, on which my right hon. Friend shares my hon. Friend's opinion that it should not be used for training.
This brings me to the matter of new evidence which I mentioned earlier. The inspector's report records evidence given by the Ministry of Defence about how often it expected to use the new areas for training if its proposals are allowed to go ahead. He found as a fact that the use was expected to be, by day, three weekdays a month and three weekends a month, and, at night, three nights a week and one weekend a month. The inspector did not suggest that a restriciton to that amount should be imposed on the Army's use of the land, but it is clear from his conclusions that it was a factor which the inspector had in mind in reaching his recommendation that training should be permitted.
In view of the very delicate balance which has to be struck in this case between the Army's need for training facilities and the public rights and interests in this land, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State felt it right that he should go further than the inspector and that he should impose a limit on the Army's use in the terms of the inspector's finding of fact which I have just quoted.
We now understand, however, that the evidence recorded by the inspector on this matter does not reflect the Army's needs. These are now said to be a daytime use of up to three weekends a month and 100 weekdays a year, with night time use of up to one night of the available weekends, and 50 weekday nights a year. That is different from the evidence considered by the inspector. It is a greater use than was stated at the time of the inquiry. Therefore, we consider that, in the interests of natural justice, we must inform all interested parties of it. The letter that we have now sent does that and offers the parties an opportunity to make representations on the new evidence in the 21-day period expiring on 6 August.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider all further representations which may be made on the matter during the period, including, of course, any representations that my hon. Friend wishes to make. He will not expect me to say anything more about this new evidence, on which I must keep an open mind until I have considered all the representations which may be made during the limited 21-day period.

Mr. Burt: This is a revelation to me and I am extremely obliged to my hon. Friend for this information. It is all new to me. It is a considerable advance on anything that we have had before. It is as near to a decision as makes no difference. My hon. Friend referred earlier to my patience, but it is not my patience that is concerned; it is the patience of my constituents and all their feelings. Although I have only just heard the inspector's report, he seems to have found an admirable balance between need, which I strongly support, as I strongly support his action in passing this matter back to people, and insisting, or appearing to insist, that at this stage great notice is taken of the Secretary of State's recommendations so that the Army sticks to what it originally asked for rather than go further. However, although the case has already taken a great deal of time and we do not want any further unnecessary delay, a 21-day period for representations may be rather tight for some of the parties concerned. Is my hon. Friend the Minister prepared to consider representations to extend, within reason, the time available for that process?

Mr. Yeo: The period allowed is meant to reflect the concern that my hon. Friend properly expressed about the protracted period that the matter has remained unresolved. However, I will certainly reflect on his remarks. If my hon. Friend finds that the parties concerned consider that 21 days is too short a period in which to make their representations, I will consider whether it is possible to extend it.
We are anxious to ensure that those involved have sufficient time to consider properly the additional evidence. As I said, I have to keep a completely open mind until I hear what representations may come from people holding differing views. However, we will not let the matter drag on for longer than necessary, as far as is consistent with a proper examination of all the representations, for reasons with which my hon. Friend is more than familiar.
It is most regrettable that it has taken so long for that clarification of the Army's requirements to emerge, but whatever weight may properly be attached to it in the final decision, it must be taken into account, and it was necessary for my Department to await that additional information before it could proceed towards a decision. Now that information has arrived, it has been communicated to the parties concerned without delay.
I fully understand the anxiety and uncertainty that lack of a decision must have caused all those with an interest in the land—whether they be common right holders, walkers or riders, or public authorities wanting to plan for future conservation and informal recreation. I know that they will be disappointed that even now a final decision is not possible, but I hope that the issue of our letter today, and the inspector's report, will remove some of the uncertainties and pave the way to a decision in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.